Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KING'S COLLEGE LONDON BILL [LORDS]

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Promoters of the King's College London Bill [Lords] may, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders or practice of this House, proceed with the Bill in the present Session; and the Petition for the Bill shall he deemed to have been deposited and all Standing Orders applicable thereto shall be deemed to have been complied with;
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the present Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the last Session;
That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read) and shall be ordered to be read the third time;
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during any previous Session.—[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.
Debate to be resumed on Tuesday 17 December.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

Jobseeker's Allowance

Mr. Austin Mitchell: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the introduction of the jobseeker's allowance. [6820]

The Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Roger Evans): Jobseeker's allowance has now been in operation for two months. It is helping people back to work and securing better value for money for the taxpayer.

Mr. Mitchell: Is it correct that this vicious, half-baked and ill-conceived measure is now producing all kinds of problems behind the scenes? Benefit offices are overwhelmed with work, so cases are taking two to three times longer than they took under unemployment benefit. Is it also correct that share fishermen, with their share fisherman's stamp, are experiencing unique difficulties because of their inability to produce proof of earnings from their last trip?

Mr. Evans: The general thrust of that question is misguided. Of course there are difficulties with such a complicated scheme, which involves many officials, but broadly speaking it is working well. I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman makes that point about share fishermen. With jobseeker's allowance—as before with unemployment benefit—they enjoy a special protected status that is unique in the benefits system, which reflects the hazardous and arduous nature of their work. The rules regarding their earnings have not been made more difficult. Share fishermen have been exempted from the remunerative work rule, and the averaging rules for their earnings under JSA are favourable to them.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing serves the recipients of benefits worse than for us to regard our responsibilities as having ended once we have handed over the money to them? Is it not much better for financial help to go hand in hand with active encouragement to find work and to get back into the labour market, because unemployment is the greatest evil that stalks this land and is the root of poverty in Britain?

Mr. Evans: The thrust of my hon. Friend's argument is right. In connection with the jobseeker's package, we introduced the back-to-work bonus, the national insurance contributions holiday, the extended four-week payments of housing benefit and council tax benefit, earnings top-ups and child disregard. Those measures are part of the Government's general package to get people off benefit and into work.

Benefits Agency (Wales)

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received


concerning the proposals by the management of the Benefits Agency in Wales for the closure of processing units and public caller offices. [6845]

Mr. Roger Evans: A number.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that, in the past 12 months, there were 16,000 personal calls to the Benefits Agency office in Holyhead, 5,000 claims for social fund payments and 3,500 payments over the counter? How can the Benefits Agency claim that it provides a better service to the people of Holyhead, Llangefni and other areas in Wales when it is withdrawing facilities and closing offices? Vulnerable people will be worse off if the plans are implemented. We are grateful to the Minister for the two-months extension of the consultation period. Will he go one step further and scrap the plans?

Mr. Evans: The proposals are subject to consultation. As the hon. Gentleman said, the period has been extended and has not yet expired. The hon. Gentleman draws attention to the use of Benefits Agency offices in Anglesey at the moment, but he should bear in mind the fact that powerful factors are changing, and will change, the way in which people use Benefits Agency offices. The jobseeker's allowance is a streamlined benefit that has covered all unemployed people since 7 October. Previously, 70 per cent. of the unemployed case load was on income support, and those people went to a Benefits Agency office. There are four jobcentres in Anglesey, all of which provide a service for JSA.

Mr. Rogers: Does the Minister accept that the proposals for south Wales are, at the very least, ill conceived and half baked, and that whoever drew them up had no concept of the geography of south Wales? In the Rhondda valleys, for example, people will have to travel many miles by means of very poor public transport, because many of them do not have any private transport. The idea that they can do their business by telephone is just as daft. Will the Minister issue telephones to them so that they can contact his Department?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman's comments, and all other representations, will be taken into account before any decision is made. I must point out to him, however, that telephone calls to the Benefits Agency are increasing in number and that, in certain circumstances, they are a more popular way of doing business with it. Modern technology enables telephone inquiries to be moved from where they are received to anywhere where an official is immediately available to deal with them. All those are important factors, and they will be borne in mind before a decision is taken.

State Pension

Mr. Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ask the Government Actuary to estimate the additional cost of paying a full basic pension from age 60 years. [6847]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Peter Lilley): At the instigation of the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), I have already asked the

Government Actuary to estimate the additional cost of allowing people to draw the full basic pension from age 60. He calculates that the cost would build up to an extra £15 billion per year.

Mr. Amess: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, to avoid the £15 billion cost of setting the pension age at 60, the basic state pension would have to be cut by £20 a week in Basildon, Southend, and across the country? Will he confirm that cutting the basic state pension by £20 a week is now the policy of the Opposition?

Mr. Lilley: I can confirm all the points made by my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Peckham wrote to me after I had pointed out that the cost of her policy would be £15 billion a year. She stated:
In government we will protect the public purse from any increase in expenditure … We will have to consider what level of basic state pension should be paid … We would seek the advice of the Government Actuary, but we anticipate … lower level of basic state pension.
I asked the Government Actuary by how much the basic pension would have to be cut to avoid that cost, and he confirmed that it would be £20 a week for the rest of people's lives.

Mr. O'Hara: Speaking of pensions, the Secretary of State has referred to changes in the rules governing war pensions as "simplification". Since when does "simplification" mean cuts in four separate allowances for war pensioners and a tightening of eligibility rules for others? In whose dictionary does "cuts" mean "simplification"? Is it not merely a Tory con trick?

Mr. Lilley: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is joining in on a scaremongering story, which has been discredited since the leader of his party started it the other day. He should now know that we sent a detailed explanation of the measures that we were proposing to every member of the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, including the Labour party representative, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). They have had a week, since the Budget, to consider the explanation. Last Thursday, they met in full session—although the hon. Member for Mansfield was not able to attend and did not feel that the measures were a threat to the people he and the other committee members represent—at the end of which they unanimously deplored the leaks and the story in The Guardian, and commended the manner in which my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State had handled the matter.
Subsequently, the Royal British Legion issued a statement which said:
The overall consensus was that there is nothing unduly confrontational in the paper to cause concern among the ex-service organisations".
The British Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association wrote to The Guardian to condemn its story, upon which the Opposition continue to rely, as containing
a number of grave errors which can only cause distress to War Pensioners.
Why are the Opposition causing distress to war pensioners?

Mr. Booth: In addition to protecting the basic pension, have we not also protected basic savings, in contrast to the Labour party, which presided over a great destruction of savings between 1974 and 1979, as inflation ripped away?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. The greatest threat to pensioners is inflation. We know that inflation is what happens under Labour Governments. In a single year, the last Labour Government wiped out one quarter of the value of the lifetime savings of pensioners. That is why we have had to introduce extra help for the elderly people who retired under Labour—to enable them to rebuild their savings under a good Conservative Government.

Ms Harman: As those in retirement who are entitled to extra help from the Department of Social Security are war pensioners, will the Secretary of State confirm that one option that was not put out for consultation, but was under consideration as recently as 14 November, was
restricting in some way claims by those with psychiatric conditions"?
That is a quotation from a DSS document. The principle of paying compensation for psychiatric conditions has been recognised since our troops experienced shell shock during world war one and suffered in Japanese prisoner of war camps in world war two. Will the Secretary of State keep faith with that principle and withdraw the proposal? Will he tell the House that he rules out restrictions on claims for psychiatric conditions caused by active military service?

Mr. Lilley: I am astonished that the hon. Lady should make that statement when she knows, because I wrote to her earlier today, that it is false. Neither I nor any of my Ministers have considered any such proposal. The hon. Lady may have a bit of paper written by a junior official purporting to suggest that it has been considered, but it has never been submitted to Ministers, has never been considered by Ministers, is not approved by Ministers and is not part of the package put to war pensioners. It is shocking and discreditable that the hon. Lady is trying to cause distress to elderly people who rightly receive help because of the mental suffering caused by their treatment at the hands of the enemy.

Social Security Spending

Mr. Wilkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the percentage of gross national product represented by Government spending on social security in (a) 1995, (b) 1990, (c) 1985 and (d) 1980. [6848]

Mr. Lilley: The figures are 12.5 per cent., 10 per cent., 11.5 per cent. and 10 per cent. respectively. Social security spending is now projected to drop as a proportion of national income over the remaining years of this century.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that detailed reply. As social security spending still accounts for a considerable proportion of gross national product, thereby preventing wealth from going into investment and the creation of wider prosperity and jobs, will he put in the Conservative manifesto imaginative,

radical proposals such as a funded national state pension scheme, which, in the medium to longer term, would reduce the proportion to well below 10 per cent.?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is right. Social security has been among the fastest growing areas of expenditure for the past 50 years, since the welfare state was established.

Mr. Tony Banks: That is a mark of failure.

Mr. Lilley: The hon. Gentleman thinks that it has been a failure since Beveridge set it up. We have introduced reforms that will result in spending growing less rapidly than national income, to leave scope for reducing taxes and creating a more prosperous economy, getting people off work and enabling them to save and meet the costs of retirement, as my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Banks: You have been getting people off work for the past 17 years.

Mr. Frank Field: Will the Secretary of State tell the House the percentage increase in real terms in social security expenditure since 1979? When he meets the electorate, will he consider that record a matter for congratulation or for concern?

Mr. Lilley: I cannot give the figure offhand, but I think that it is about 4 per cent. a year. That is a matter both for congratulation and for concern. It is a matter for congratulation that we have met and safeguarded the needs of the unemployed, the sick, the disabled, the elderly and carers. However, it is a matter for concern because the bill has been outstripping the nation's ability to pay. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), introduced reforms in 1986, which I have continued. The beneficial effects of those reforms have begun to show. We are now almost alone in the western world in having got a grip on the problem, and we can look forward with confidence to the future.

Mr. David Shaw: Can my right hon. Friend explain the fact that, in 1980, just after the Government took office, social security expenditure represented quite a low proportion of gross domestic product? Was it because there were a number of social security cuts between 1974 and 1979? Is my right hon. Friend old enough in political terms to recall Labour cutting the pension in real terms in 1976? Is it not a tribute to the Government that, since 1979, we have always increased social security in relation to inflation?

Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do recall the cuts in real terms to pensions and the fact that for two years in succession Labour broke its promise on the Christmas bonus for pensioners. I do not believe that pensioners can look forward with confidence to another Labour Government, and I trust that they will remember that next May.

Mr. Wicks: Given the spending total on social security, does the Secretary of State really expect war pensioners to contribute to social security cuts? Is he really planning to stop the four-yearly assessments that lead to increased entitlements for veterans? Given the great service of our


veterans, is that not a cut too far? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the war pensions memorandum was called "Sweeteners" and that he received a copy of it? Does he accept that people do not want sweeteners, but want justice for veterans?

Mr. Lilley: I had thought better of the hon. Gentleman than that he should join in such shameful scaremongering. He has got it wrong. The changes in long-term assessments to which he refers mean that pensioners can seek a review at any time they wish, but they will no longer receive a letter, which many pensioners and the pensioner lobbies found disturbing as it suggested that their pensions would no longer be paid. That will no longer happen. The change will not save significant money, but it is welcomed by the pensioner lobbies. It is particularly extraordinary that the Labour party should suggest that we pick and choose our medical advice on such matters. That is a frightening suggestion, as the only part of the benefit system that allows Government some discretion as to how much they give war pensioners is in local government matters, and all but two of the local authorities that do not give full help to war pensioners are Labour-controlled—[Interruption.] There are 18 of them. If anyone decides to pursue the scare, I shall list those 18 local authorities in the House.

Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, apart from invalidity benefit, nearly all benefit increases have been in means-tested benefits, not universal benefits? Does he agree that we have to consider the dynamic effects of changes to the benefits system on social structures, not merely their immediate short-term impact? Does he accept the support of many Conservative Members for the courageous changes that he has made to housing benefit and payments to single-parent families as, in the long run, they should benefit the social structure and not merely produce short-term savings?

Mr. Lilley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the points that he makes. The growth has been not just in means-tested benefits. Benefit spending on war pensioners, for example, will increase next year—just as it has this year—because, unlike the Labour party, we are determined to protect and help war pensioners. My hon. Friend is right about trying to avoid means testing: I deplore Labour's plans to extend means testing into child benefit for those staying on at school and to pension entitlements—a proposal that Lady Castle has rightly condemned as a major extension of means testing to all pensioners.

Incapacity Benefit

Mr. Bradley: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the real-terms percentage change since 1979 in social security spending on incapacity benefit. [6849]

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Alistair Burt): Between 1978–79 and 1994–95, expenditure on invalidity benefit rose by 216 per cent. in real terms. As a result of the introduction of incapacity benefit in April 1995, we expect expenditure in the long term to be significantly reduced.

Mr. Bradley: Is it not clear that the introduction of incapacity benefit will reduce benefit for people in ill

health regardless of their circumstances? In the past month, two constituents have told me that they have had heart attacks and are still under the care of the local hospital and their general practitioners, but have had their incapacity benefit taken off them. Following my intervention, those benefits have been restored. Surely such people should be treated as being in exceptional circumstances due to their severe medical condition and should not have their benefit taken away. If the Minister agrees, will he ensure that fresh instructions are given to the Benefits Agency medical service so that no people who have had heart attacks and are under the care of a local hospital or a GP suffer the distress of having their benefits taken off them?

Mr. Burt: I have looked at the two cases that the hon. Gentleman raises: the matter is not quite as simple as he suggests. The treatment of those who have had heart attacks varies, as do their chances of getting back to work, depending on their condition. In the cases to which he referred, the system worked because there was an opportunity to review them. Whether somebody is capable of going back to work must essentially be a medical decision.
The hon. Gentleman attended a presentation of the all work test when he was an Opposition Front Bencher, and he had an opportunity to talk to doctors. He will he aware that there is no instruction from the Government to make life more difficult for those who suffer heart attacks. My concern is to ensure that doctors have sufficient scope to allow them to make the right decision. There is plenty of opportunity in the test to make exceptional decisions where they believe that there is a substantial risk to health. I am obviously concerned about some of the cases that have arisen recently, and I have already had meetings with officials in the Department. The all work test is being monitored, and a publication about it will be available early in the new year. At the moment, I am satisfied that doctors have the proper scope that they need.

Mr. Churchill: By their nature, war disability pensioners are a declining band. Was it really necessary, therefore, for the Government to deprive them of that to which they would have been entitled this year and in the years ahead? Will my hon. Friend clarify exactly when the measures that were announced on 5 December will be implemented? I have already received a significant number of disturbing letters suggesting that, for deafness, the policy was implemented several months ago. Consequently, many hundreds—if not thousands—of people are being deprived of £40 a week that they would have stood to receive under the previous arrangements.

Mr. Burt: I am not altogether sure whether my hon. Friend heard the earlier replies given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If he did not, I suggest that he reads them in tomorrow's Hansard. I can tell him that it has been the practice right the way through the system to accept the medical advice that has been given to the Government when dealing with such cases. Most often, medical advice may allow extra claims and extra opportunity. If my hon. Friend is siding with the Opposition in wanting to allow the Government to pick and choose what information is accepted, he must appreciate the great danger of that course. The medical


evidence on which the Government are relying has been placed in the Library. All that I can do is urge him not to believe everything that he might read in The Guardian—

Mr. Churchill: When is it being implemented?

Mr. Burt: —but to listen to colleagues and read debates that have already taken place with the groups with which the Government discuss the proper implementation date for such measures.

Ms Lynne: Does the Minister accept that a number of people are not now getting incapacity benefit because they are allowed only five working days to prepare their appeal? That is happening at the same time as the Government are cutting benefits to war pensioners who gave their health in the service of this country. Is it not about time that the Government stopped attacking disabled people?

Mr. Burt: Expenditure on the sick and disabled has risen by some 280 per cent. since the Government have been in office. That record is based on the strength of the economy and is one that the hon. Lady, had she been a member of the Lib-Lab pact, could never have afforded. The success rate for appeals on invalidity benefit is running at about 44 per cent., which is comparable with other social security appeals. There is no way that the Government are being mean towards disabled people. Indeed, we have produced a range of legislation that will improve the quality of life for disabled people for many years to come.

Computer Systems

Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the millennium compliance of his Department's computer systems and those connected with them; and if he will make a statement. [6850]

Mr. Burt: We have set up a central project to assess and manage the effects of the year 2000 date change. Investigative work is well under way. A full analysis of the work necessary to achieve compliance and an estimate of costs are expected to be completed by the end of January 1997.

Mr. Atkinson: In view of the crucial importance of the efficient and uninterrupted provision of pensions and benefits, not least at the turn of the century, does my hon. Friend agree that it will not be enough to ensure that the computer systems for which his Department is responsible are millennium compliant? What is he doing to ensure that computer systems in the private sector to which his Department's systems are connected will be safe in time?

Mr. Burt: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's interest in this important topic. I can confirm that the Department is working with its external suppliers, as their compatibility is crucial. I am sure that he will be glad to know that all new contracts are year 2000 compliant, and that existing contracts are being reviewed—and renegotiated where necessary—to ensure full compliance.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: A Minister told us yesterday that the switch for the millennium would be an extremely

expensive project. Can the Minister tell us whether his projections for costs, which clearly come before the final projections in January, are included in the Red Book for the coming year and up until 1999?

Mr. Burt: At the moment, it is not possible for our Department to estimate precisely what the costs will be. The programme is that the report I mentioned in my main answer will be ready for the departmental board by the end of January 1997. By the end of August 1997, the work that needs to be done on costings will be done, and we expect the project to be implemented in the Department and all our systems to be compatible by the end of August 1998. We have some 18 major systems and some 1,500 small and medium-size systems. At the moment, it simply is not possible to make an estimate with any degree of credibility or accuracy. The work is under way, and as soon as those costs are available they will be made available to the House.

Child Benefit

Mr. Spring: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact of child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds on the number of children staying in full-time education. [6851]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): The proportion of 16-year-olds staying on at school is up from 42 per cent. in 1979 to 71 per cent. in 1995; for 17-year-olds, it has more than doubled from 27 per cent. to around 60 per cent.; and for 18-year-olds, it has nearly trebled, from 15 per cent. to 40 per cent.
Child benefit is a substantial part of the available financial support—last year, £644 million was paid to more than a million families with young people aged 16 and over in full-time education. It has provided, and will continue to provide, reliable and regular financial support, contributing £560 a year to the family income—and more than £1,000 if there are two such children in the family.

Mr. Spring: Does my hon. Friend agree that, for many families, the sum of £560 makes the crucial difference between the education and non-education of their children? Can my hon. Friend confirm that that sum—£560 for parents with children at school over the age of 16—would be lost under proposals from the Labour party?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend's analysis is absolutely right. Furthermore, Labour, having wrongly analysed the problem it sought to address, now compounds its error by proposing to take away more than £1,000 from parents with two teenagers. That is Labour's teenage tax and it is the equivalent of 5p on the income tax of such families.

Benefit Recipients (Newham)

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his current estimate of the number of persons receiving benefit in Newham. [6852]

Mr. Roger Evans: Some information on the numbers receiving individual benefits in Newham is available.


However, as people often receive more than one benefit, I cannot supply information on how many, in total, are receiving benefit.

Mr. Banks: That sounds a bit like a cop-out. We know that there are tens of thousands of such people. It would help if the Minister would register that fact, because it shows the extent of poverty in Newham.
Is the Minister aware that one of the worst problems arises from the habitual residence test—which exists not in law, but only in Benefits Agency guidance? The way in which the test impacts tends to vary between offices. For example, in Stratford, two thirds of people fail the test; in Plaistow, only 8 per cent. do so. When people fail, they lose all benefit, which means that social services must pick up an enormous burden. On appeal, large numbers of people succeed in overturning the original decision, but in the meantime they have to suffer. May we please have some proper statistics on the way in which the test impacts in Newham, and further monitoring of the different ways in which it is applied by benefit offices?

Mr. Evans: It is not a cop-out. I can supply the hon. Gentleman with the detailed figures, but I will not weary the House with them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If the House wishes to be wearied, I shall start reading. For the most recently available date, the figure for those on income support is 33,000; for unemployment benefit before 7 October, it is 16,000; for housing benefit, 41,000; and for council tax benefit, 35,000. For many of the other benefits, information is not broken down on a borough basis.
Newham's particular problems with deprivation are recognised by the Government in the generosity of the standard spending assessment under the local government settlement. The hon. Gentleman said that the habitual residence test was applied inconsistently between benefit offices. If he cares to write to me with specific case details, I shall happily investigate the matter.

Mr. John Marshall: My hon. Friend has told us how many people receive benefit in Newham. How many more people in Newham would receive benefit if we were to sign up to the minimum wage and the social chapter, thereby adopting the job-destroying policy of the Opposition?

Mr. Evans: An unknown number, but a great deal more.

Mr. Spearing: Is the Minister aware that an increasing number of people in Newham who previously received benefit because they were incapacitated are now, on a medical examination, found allegedly fit for work? Will he tell the House whether the recent changes in the rules were based on sound medical advice—and, if so, from whom—or whether there is some other motivation in the Government's mind?

Mr. Evans: The latest figures that I have show that 7,447 people in Newham receive incapacity benefit. My hon. Friend the Minister of State set out the position with the appeals process a moment ago.
On the all work test, the Government have always acted on expert medical advice.

State Pension

Mr. John Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what representations he has received in respect of a review of the decision to raise pensions in line with prices rather than earnings. [6853]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Oliver Heald): We receive many representations on this point. The fact remains that the estimated net cost of increasing the basic pension from April 1997 by the higher of earnings or prices since 1980 would be £7.9 billion.

Mr. Greenway: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's policy remains one of continuing to increase the retirement pension in line with inflation and targeting additional help on the elderly poor? Does he agree that, from the figure that he has mentioned, no Government could afford to restore the earnings link? Is it not sheer hypocrisy for the Opposition to criticise the removal of the earnings link without committing themselves to restoring it?

Mr. Heald: Despite the ending of the earnings link, the average net incomes of pensioners have risen by 51 per cent. since 1979. That is because we have maintained the value of the basic state pension, encouraged private provision and targeted help on those most in need.
What is the Opposition's advice? It is vague and subject to a review body. We have exchanged the dangerous old certainties of Labour for a new dangerous uncertainty. As Baroness Castle put it—well, it is meaningless, is it not?

Mr. Denham: Among the pensioners who have to supplement their basic state pensions are war pensioners. Will the Minister confirm that three of the administrative changes that are proposed—ending reminders, ending automatic uprating or review and requiring independent evidence—will mean that, over and above any administrative savings, 16,000 war pensioners, according to the Department's own civil servants, will lose out? Will the Minister confirm that 16,000 war pensioners will lose out as a result of those so-called administrative savings?

Mr. Heald: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave earlier—it made the position clear—and also to what BLESMA, the British Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association, has said:
The Government proposals introduce a number of improvements which will benefit both War Pensioners and War Widows and materially assist the War Pensions Agency in dealing more expeditiously with claims and appeals.
That is what the people at the sharp end say. They do not go scaremongering, like the Opposition.

Mr. Stephen: Does my hon. Friend recall how easy it was for the Labour party to link pensions with rises in


average earnings? In those days, Labour's management of the national economy was so incompetent that prices were rising a good deal faster than average earnings.

Mr. Heald: As my hon. Friend says, the Labour party in government robbed pensioners. There was 15 per cent. inflation every year for people who had saved throughout their lives. That is why we now need to target extra help on those who are most in need—and we are doing that: an extra £1.2 billion has been provided every year since 1988.

Single Mothers

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what estimate he has made of the percentage of single mothers who are dependent on state benefits. [6854]

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: In 1995, 65 per cent. of lone mothers were receiving income support and 17 per cent. family credit.

Mr. Williams: What help can the Minister announce for single parents who want to find work but cannot, because of the benefits trap, the lack of affordable child care and the lack of employment and training advice? Why do the Government continually use single parents as a scapegoat? Why do the Government not lend a hand to help them out of benefits dependency?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman asks what help the Government can announce. Every week, the Government announce measures designed to help lone parents to return to work. In October, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced the parent plus scheme, to be piloted over the next three years. That scheme will be the best of its type practised anywhere in the world.

Mr. Nicholls: Is not the real benefits trap in circumstances of this kind the fact that, if a woman had three illegitimate children, she would receive far more benefit than the possible earnings of any probable husband? Instead of reinforcing family life, the benefits system now positively undervalues it by making it clear that the family must view the state as the father of first rather than last resort.

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Not a month goes by without an improvement in the performance of the Child Support Agency in getting maintenance through, principally to mothers. My hon. Friend is right in other respects as well. Through the into-work and in-work benefits, and through the after-school places endorsed by the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman), the Government have made a real difference in helping the 90 per cent. of lone parents who want to work to achieve their aim.

Benefit Applicants (Transport)

Mr. Tyler: To ask the Secretary of State for Social

Security what steps he proposes to reduce the transport difficulties faced by benefit applicants in scattered rural communities. [6855]

Mr. Roger Evans: The Benefits Agency provides a full range of services from its extensive local office network, by post, by telephone and, for those who need it, by home visits.

Mr. Tyler: Will the Minister pay particular attention to the problem of those in rural areas who are trying to obtain the jobseeker's allowance? In such areas, insistence on attendance at a jobcentre often means a journey of many hours in the more scattered rural areas. Even if public transport is available, the cost may be £4 or £5 a time, taking a major proportion of the allowance that those people may receive. When will the Government stop discriminating against rural areas?

Mr. Evans: It is quite the reverse. Until the introduction of jobseeker's allowance, 70 per cent. of the unemployed were on income support and were dealt with by Benefits Agency offices. The Employment Service's jobcentre network is more widespread; there are five jobcentres in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and the jobseeker's allowance is administered through them.

Mr. Garnier: Is the answer to reduce not the transport difficulties but the number of unemployed in rural areas, and are we not doing precisely that, by reducing rates and improving the economy so that more people can get back to work in both urban and rural areas?

Mr. Evans: My hon. and learned Friend is right on all points.

Mr. Beggs: Does the Minister agree that all recipients of benefit should get equal value from that benefit? Despite the help given by managers and staff in Department of Social Security offices in alleviating poor transport to offices for claimants, will he consider providing travel warrants for those who have to attend?

Mr. Evans: The position is that, if people are required to attend a Benefits Agency office for a specific interview, in Great Britain, the costs are met less 80p. The fortnightly signing on at an Employment Service jobcentre is not covered, but the service pays the full cost of transport if a special interview is required.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December. [6874]

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Kirkwood: In spite of commendable resolution at the weekend, is it not clear to everyone that attempting to


run a minority Government, with a party in open revolt, makes it impossible to secure a deal that is in the long-term interests of the United Kingdom, at Amsterdam, Dublin or anywhere else? If, as the Prime Minister suggested on Sunday, he is motivated by the national interest, will he operate on that basis and call for an early Dissolution of Parliament, so that we can have an early general election?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be unsurprised to hear that I will pick the election date in my own time and not at his behest.
On the discussions in Europe, I set out the Government's position with great clarity. There are a number of extremely difficult questions to face in the intergovernmental conference over the next few months; on some issues, we have allies in Europe and, on others, we do not, but in each instance we have set out our position and we propose to stick with it.

Mr. Alison: Is my right hon. Friend aware of how greatly the public at large, especially parents, will welcome the Government's decision to press the broadcasting authorities to curb television violence? Does he agree that, if there is even slight evidence that increased screen violence is linked, via imitation or disinhibition, to increased crime, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the potential victims of such crime and no reasonable remedies must be discounted?

The Prime Minister: I believe that my right hon. Friend has spoken for parents throughout the country. There is a difficult balance to keep in ensuring that we have free and open media and that they maintain the standards that are appropriate for society generally and for children. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage has today agreed a plan of action with the chairmen of the BBC, the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Council, and we look forward to its being carried out.

Mr. Blair: Does the Prime Minister agree with Sir Leon Brittan, who said this morning that Conservative party divisions were weakening Britain's negotiating position in Europe?

The Prime Minister: There are two things that really damage the national interest in negotiating in Europe. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to say that, when the House of Commons is not united on any issue, that weakens any Government's position in international negotiations. That is certainly true; but what also undermines our national interest and our negotiating position in Europe is the fact that many of the socialist Governments in Europe expect, were there to be a Labour Government, a very easy ride and a distinct change of policy. They believe that a Labour Government would make changes and surrender positions to which this Government have held—positions which, if surrendered, would be damaging to the United Kingdom.

Mr. Blair: May I suggest to the Prime Minister that, after his interview on Sunday, much of which I would agree with, there is less clear water between him, his deputy, one half of the Cabinet and the Opposition than between him and most of his Back Benchers? If he is not

prepared to agree with Sir Leon Brittan, does he stand by his own comments at the weekend that the Conservative divisions were "self-evidently" damaging to Britain's interests?

The Prime Minister: I made that perfectly clear at the weekend. The right hon. Gentleman knows that. I have also made it clear that the Government have set out a position that we believe to be in the national interest. The national interest is going to come before the party interest. There is no doubt about that, and I made that absolutely clear again. I repeat to the right hon. Gentleman that what also damages the national interest is the belief among our partners in Europe that many of the positions that we hold would be surrendered by an alternative Government.

Mr. Blair: I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has admitted that these Conservative divisions damage the country's interest. [Interruption.] "It is obvious," shouts a voice from the Back Benches. It is obvious, except to the Conservative party. Is the Prime Minister aware that Lord Blake has said in the past few hours that he has never seen the Conservative party in such disarray in 14 general elections? Is he aware that, this lunchtime, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) referred to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) as "politically insane"? Some might say that he is a good judge of such matters. If all that is the case, does not the Prime Minister agree with the vast majority of people who say that, if the Conservatives cannot be trusted to run themselves, why should they be trusted to run this country?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that he has precisely the same divisions on his own Back Benches. I look at the hon. Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I ask whether they share the same position on European matters as the right hon. Gentleman. But I shall tell him about unity: we are united in our opposition to a centralist, federalist Europe as much as Labour is united in favour of a federal Europe. We are standing up for Britain's interests in Europe; the Labour party is determined to stand up for Brussels' interests in Britain.

Mr. Nigel Evans: My right hon. Friend knows, because he has visited it, that Ribble valley is a beautiful part of the United Kingdom that attracts many thousands of tourists every year. Many hundreds of jobs are involved in the tourism industry there; many of them are in small businesses, such as bed and breakfast, small restaurants and cafeterias. What does he believe would be the impact of the introduction of a minimum wage and the social chapter and of caving in to every rule and regulation from Brussels on small businesses in Ribble valley?

The Prime Minister: There is no doubt about the impact. Small businesses would suffer greatly were those policies to be imposed on them. Not only would existing small businesses suffer greatly but jobs would be lost. Not only would present jobs be lost but the future


construction of small businesses would be inhibited and future jobs that would otherwise be created would not be created.

Mr. Denham: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December. [6875]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Denham: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the changes taking place in the administration of war pensions include the end to automatic reviews of entitlement, an end to reminders to submit claim forms and a requirement to provide independent evidence before a review can take place? Most important, will he confirm that civil servants estimate that, over and above any administrative savings, 16,000 war pensioners will lose out as a result of those changes?

The Prime Minister: Last week, the Leader of the Opposition made a number of charges about war pensions which he now knows to be incorrect. He may not have known it last week when he said it in the House, but he now knows that it was incorrect and I hope that he will correct it. A few hours ago, the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) made charges about war pensions, which she now knows were incorrect. She was told, in the past half-hour in the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, that they were incorrect. The fact is that some of the changes made last week extend benefits rather than reduce them. Some claimants will get more. No claimants will lose.
The hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) will know of the letters written by the British Limbless Ex-Service Men's Association and the Royal British Legion which made it clear that the publicity last week and the activities of the Labour party totally misrepresented the Government's policy and what the Government had done on the issue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not in the same business.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will the Prime Minister confirm full and continuing support for grammar schools, which provide unique opportunities for children from low-income homes to achieve educational excellence? Will he resist in all ways something that is worrying us in Southend, where a quarter of all our children attend such grammar schools—abolition of selection tests, which would be a recipe for the destruction of these excellent schools?

The Prime Minister: I can confirm that. As my hon. Friend will know, there are proposals before the House to allow a limited amount of selection in schools of all sorts in the state sector. What we seek to do in the education sector is provide a degree of diversity that matches the diversity of the children. A single, regimented, rigid system does not enable the diversity of education that our children need to

have provided. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is presenting a Bill to the House that will extend diversity and prevent the problem set out by my hon. Friend.

Dr. Lynne Jones: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 10 December. [6876]

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

Dr. Jones: Surely the Prime Minister must now accept that the civil war in his party makes it impossible for his Government to have any clear authority in negotiations in Dublin or anywhere else. Would he take seriously any other European Government who were in the same shambles as his own? The last time this happened, the Prime Minister resigned as party leader. Now that it has happened again, will he, in the interest of the country, resign as Prime Minister and call a general election?

The Prime Minister: The simple answer is no.
As for divisions, if the hon. Lady is so concerned about them, perhaps she might have a word with the 50 or so of her colleagues who have made it perfectly clear that they are wholly opposed to a single currency. On one day, we have 50 of them saying that they are opposed to a single currency and others, led by the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), writing to The Independent saying that they are in favour of it. The hon. Lady had better realise that the splits in the Opposition are seismic.

Mrs. Gorman: Has my right hon. Friend had time to read the MORI poll published in The Sun newspaper yesterday, which was, in part, conducted in my constituency and which showed that 68 per cent. of respondents felt that they did not wish to be in a single currency and wished to keep the pound; and that almost 50 per cent. said that they would rather not be in the European Union at all? Is he aware of other polls that reflect similar sentiments? Does he not think that the honest way to clear the air would be to have a referendum and ask the people of Britain which way they would like our country to go in future?

The Prime Minister: We made it clear last April that, if the Government decided that we would enter into a single currency, there would be a referendum on the specific question whether we should go into a single currency. That has been settled policy since last April and I hope that my hon. Friend will support that policy.
What we need in this country is a rational debate on the issue of Europe, so that—not only on the issue of a single currency, but on all the other important issues that lie ahead of us in the intergovernmental conference—people have a reasoned debate and are then able to make reasoned judgments on the basis of facts, and not scares.

Gulf War Illness

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): With your permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement on Gulf war illness.
As the House will remember with great pride, six years ago some 50.000 British troops deployed to the Gulf as part of the allied coalition to liberate Kuwait. The prime concern and duty of the Government and the chiefs of staff—now as then—was the safety and welfare of our service personnel; and the commanders on the ground took every possible step to minimise the risk faced by our troops. The House will recall that British troops were facing an aggressor who had formidably well-equipped armed forces, and whom we correctly assessed as possessing and being capable of using weapons of mass destruction.
The Gulf campaign was, by any standards, a brilliant feat of arms. The number of British service men killed or wounded in action was, mercifully, much smaller than had at one stage been feared. Illness amongst our troops in the desert was much lower than that experienced during earlier conflicts—a reflection of the steps taken to maintain very high standards in the face of unfamiliar, difficult and sometimes unhealthy conditions.
Since the conflict, a small number of those who served have become ill. Some of those are ill with clearly recognisable symptoms, for which they are receiving appropriate treatment; others are suffering from sickness which medical science has so far found it difficult readily to explain. There have been suggestions that some of those unwell are afflicted by a specific syndrome caused by service in the Gulf.
I want to make it plain yet again that, as much as we were anxious for the welfare of our troops during the conflict, so we remain no less concerned about the health of our Gulf veterans, both serving and retired.
In our search for answers, we have throughout been guided by the best medical and scientific advice available in the land. In 1993, we established a medical assessment programme to try to diagnose the reasons why some Gulf war veterans were ill. In order to establish the professional independence and integrity of this work, the methodology of the programme was audited, at my request, by the Royal College of Physicians, and was endorsed by that body in July 1995.
So far, some 921 veterans have been examined, and have been referred for appropriate further treatment where necessary. Although the results have not produced any evidence of a new pattern of illness, the Government retain an entirely open mind on whether there is generally more illness amongst our veterans than should be expected, and whether there are Gulf service-related factors at work which remain to be discovered. It is now clear that the medical assessment programme alone cannot answer those questions. On the advice, therefore, of the Royal College of Physicians, we have asked the Medical Research Council to establish a major, independent, peer-reviewed research programme.
The MRC has considered in great detail a large number of research proposals. It advises that the only scientifically sound way to proceed is by conducting epidemiological

studies to address two specific questions: are British Gulf veterans suffering more ill health than they would have done had they not served in the Gulf, and if so, what is the nature and magnitude of the phenomenon; and are British veterans finding disproportionate difficulties in having children, or are their offspring suffering from an unusual number of birth defects, and if so, what is the nature and magnitude of the risk?
The MRC's recommendation is to proceed with two studies, which I am pleased to be able to announce today. They will be led by Professor Nicola Cherry at Manchester university and by Dr. Patricia Doyle of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The costs, which will amount to about £1.3 million, will be met by the Ministry of Defence. I should like to express my thanks to Professor Alan McGregor of King's college medical school for his work as chairman of the Medical Research Council committee examining these matters.
The Medical Research Council advises us that, if the studies are to be rigorously and scientifically conducted, they will take about three years to complete. The Medical Research Council tells us that the research programme should find the answers we seek. The projects will be carefully co-ordinated with a major United States-funded epidemiological study, which is being conducted in parallel at King's college, London by Dr. Simon Wessely.
The Government have throughout worked very closely indeed with the US authorities on Gulf war-related health research. From the start, there has been the most extensive—indeed, almost daily—contact between the medical teams involved on both sides of the Atlantic. We are most truly grateful for that assistance.
I visited the United States recently to discuss those matters in detail. I want the House to know that we are as one with the Americans, and that they have agreed to allow us unfettered access to the results of the extensive research programme that they have in hand. I attach the greatest importance to that extremely valuable co-operation.
So as to consolidate those links further, I have appointed a British medical liaison officer to work in the United States Department of Defense research programme. A British officer already sits on the US research working group, affording us a valuable insight into its on-going work.
Meanwhile, at the request of the American authorities, the Medical Research Council has agreed to review the research that has been carried out in America. That will enable us to establish the relevance of any of their studies to the health of our veterans, and whether there are any obvious gaps.
The Government are also taking further steps to remind veterans of the existence of the medical assessment programme. At the same time, we are writing to all the general practitioners of all those who have been seen in the medical assessment programme so as to improve our knowledge of the medical progress of retired service men.
There has been much speculation that explanations for illness among Gulf veterans can be found in the various hazards that faced our troops during the campaign. The Government wish to be entirely open about what happened during the Gulf conflict, and I wish to emphasise that we have nothing to hide, and, indeed, absolutely no reason to do so.
In this connection, as I promised, I am now able to update the House on the use of pesticides in the protection of our forces during the campaign. Understandably, that issue has given rise to genuine concern in recent weeks.
The House will recall that I made it public on 4 October that there had been wider use of organophosphate chemicals in the Gulf than had previously been thought, or than we had previously been advised. I have already apologised to the House for that, and expressed my profound regret and anger that that ran counter to earlier information given in utmost good faith by Ministers in answer to parliamentary questions. I unreservedly do so again. I subsequently told the House that a comprehensive investigation had been commissioned to discover the facts, and I promised to report the outcome as soon as it was known.
My noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal told another place on 4 December that we expected the results before Christmas. I received the report of that investigation, which covers two separate areas, on 6 December.
On the first, which is what actually happened in the Gulf, the investigation team discovered that OP pesticides were indeed used by our troops in the Gulf to deal with the serious threat posed by fly-borne disease on a much wider scale than previously reported. Secondly, the investigation team discovered that, with the exception of the possible small-scale use of pesticides obtained incorrectly, there is no evidence that they were improperly used.
There is also the question of the dusting powder used to delouse Iraqi prisoners of war, where the inquiry has found that the number of Iraqi prisoners involved ran to hundreds rather than the 50 previously reported to the House. Again, I very much regret the fact that Ministers, and therefore the House, should have been inadvertently misinformed.
I am making arrangements for this section of the report to be published in full, and a copy is being placed in the Library of the House of Commons.
The House will understand that, given the extraordinary pressure of work generated by the vast and complex preparations for a sustained period of high-intensity conflict, and at a distance of six years, we simply cannot be sure of all the details. There may indeed be individual veterans who have further information to add to the story: if so, we would welcome it. We are as anxious as anyone to establish what happened. They should get in touch with me at the Ministry of Defence. I want the House to be wholly confident that we are absolutely determined to establish what happened.
The second part of the investigation deals with the question of how parliamentary questions were answered. The key findings are that the first parliamentary question in July 1994 was answered incorrectly because Ministers were given flawed advice arising from a failure within one area of the Department; and that the original flawed advice was repeatedly resubmitted in answer to further parliamentary questions.
On the question of how Ministers became aware of the mistake that had been made, detailed investigation has found that the possible local purchase of OP pesticides was mentioned in background material to a written parliamentary question answered in October 1995. In June 1996, officials on one occasion suggested possible difficulties over the standard briefing line on pesticide

use. In July, a note included in briefing material mentioned OP pesticide purchase and use; but it was not until 25 September that Ministers were given clear, written advice on the wider use of pesticides during the Gulf war, and that previous answers needed to be corrected.
I must emphasise again that Ministers at no stage knowingly misled the House on this matter, nor would they ever have done so, and I again unreservedly apologise to the House that this should have come to pass.
The evident failures in providing proper and timely advice to Ministers are a matter of serious concern. It is essential that the reasons are examined in detail. Accordingly, a separate investigation, overseen by the permanent under-secretary, is being set in hand.
Because of its potential implications for individuals, arising from the possibility of disciplinary or administrative action affecting careers, it would be against natural justice to publish the detailed information gathered so far on these matters. I can, however, assure the House that the further investigation will be completed as soon as possible and the findings made available to the House at the first opportunity. This is a serious matter, and I felt it important to report the facts as soon as they became available.
I now turn to the issue of the vaccination programme against possible biological weapons attacks in the Gulf. There has been concern that those vaccinations might have contributed to some of the sickness reported, although there is at present no evidence to support that.
I am sure that the House will understand the need for the greatest care to be taken over the release of the details of our response to a biological or chemical weapons threat. That could clearly be of value to potential future aggressors.
However, following a detailed review, we now judge that, six years on and in the light of further developments since the Gulf conflict, knowledge of the steps that we took then is now less militarily sensitive. I can therefore today provide a full account of the vaccination programme that was carried out, and to this end I am placing a detailed memorandum today in the Library of the House of Commons.
The memorandum makes it clear that the MOD acted swiftly to offer the best protection available to our forces—on a voluntary basis—in the face of a clearly assessed potentially lethal threat—an assessment since wholly vindicated by the findings of the United Nations special commission. In the event, Saddam Hussein did not—thank God—use his biological weapons, but no responsible Government could have ignored the very real possibility that he might have done so, and accordingly appropriate precautions were taken.
Finally, my Department has been keeping a very careful watch on the many reported incidents of chemical and biological weapons use in the Gulf. We have so far traced around 100 such claims, all of which have proved unfounded. However, it does seem likely that some chemical weapons material may have been released, after hostilities ceased, by the destruction of the Iraqi ammunition dump at bunker 73 at Al-Khamisiyah. As the House has already been told, at the time there were no United Kingdom units in the footprint of potential danger since identified by the United States authorities.
I am today placing in the Library of the House a copy of a map showing the exact location of our units at the time the destruction took place.
In conclusion, the Government spared no effort to protect our troops in the Gulf war, and our immunisation and environmental health programmes were solely directed to that end. We have of course every sympathy for those veterans who are ill, and we retain an open mind about whether there is or is not a Gulf war syndrome. Whatever the case, we are determined to get to the bottom of it, as I hope very much that this statement has demonstrated.

Dr. David Clark: I thank the Minister for coming to the House today to make this important, long and complicated statement, which represents a victory for those of us who have been campaigning for more openness and urgency in the Government's response to illnesses suffered by people who served in the Gulf war.
Does the Minister understand the frustration and the anger felt by Gulf war veterans and by hon. Members on Opposition Benches that the Government have taken more than three years to arrive at this point? The statement today reveals a shift in the Government's approach, but why, oh why, have they taken so long to reach this position? Why has it taken three years for the Government to admit its central line of defence:
It is now clear that the medical assessment programme alone cannot answer these questions"?
That was clear to us more than three years ago. Why did the Government ignore the warnings about veterans' health for so long? Does the Minister realise that the Government's failure to act has caused three years of unnecessary suffering and concern among our veterans?
Why have the Government changed their mind about the other crucial question of conducting an epidemiological study of the problem, which I urged upon the Minister in the House more than three years ago? Does he recall writing to me about that subject in February 1995? He said:
there were a number of reasons on both medical and statistical grounds, why such a study"—
an epidemiological study—
was not appropriate".
Today he has finally accepted our argument that an epidemiological study is the way forward. What has changed his mind? If an epidemiological study was not appropriate in February 1995, why is it crucial now? I put it to the Minister that his statement today raises more questions than it answers.
The Secretary of State has spent much time trying to respond to questions about the organophosphates incident, but the questions remain. We understand that there will be two investigations, but I am concerned that neither will do anything to improve the health of those soldiers who may have been affected by organophosphates.
Will there be an inquiry into that aspect of the problem? Will that inquiry establish precisely why a post-operational Army report, dated March 1991, detailing inadequate protection for our troops from chemicals, was not acted upon? Why did it take four years for the Ministry of Defence to learn of that report?
How does that report square with the Minister's comment today that there is no evidence that organophosphates were used improperly? The 1991 report gives repeated examples of inadequate equipment, no equipment and no protection for the troops. Will the Minister also confirm that, last week in the other place, it was alleged that the medical records of more than 10,000 veterans have been wiped from the computer? Is that correct? The question was not answered when it was raised in the other place.
We are pleased that the Government appear to have moved some way forward today, but we are rather tired of finding that the fine words being used by the Minister—quite rightly praising the excellence of our troops—are not matched by actions.
I hope that the Minister's statement is a statement that the Government are taking the issue seriously, and that our veterans will have their true concerns addressed properly.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the measured tenor of his response. I do indeed understand the frustration of those who feel that they are ill as a result of their Gulf service. We would be delighted to be able to magic an answer tomorrow morning to set their minds at rest, but that is simply not possible. The United States has spent millions of pounds on research programmes already, and so far it has made little progress, which is why it is matching our epidemiological programme, with Dr. Wessely in London.
The hon. Gentleman asked me how it had taken so long to reach this position. Again, that is an entirely legitimate question. We have throughout always been guided by the proper and best medical advice available. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), set up the medical assessment programme as soon as the first complaints about illness from the Gulf came through, in 1993. By the end of 1993, only three people had been through the medical assessment programme.
I referred that work to the Royal College of Physicians, in 1995, which, after reviewing it and endorsing it, suggested that I refer certain matters to the Medical Research Council, which I did in May of this year. In October, the MRC came forward with its proposals, and I am now in a position to announce the results today.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we have never ignored any warnings about veterans' health. We are indeed wholly aware of the needs and requirements of some of those people who are clearly sick. Some of them, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have already received appropriate treatment for clearly defined illnesses, but there are others for whom we do not yet have an answer as to why they are ill. The study was not appropriate earlier because the numbers in the medical assessment programme were simply not big enough to provide a reference point. The hon. Gentleman mentioned February 1995, when he discussed the matter with me. By then, only 301 people had been through the medical assessment programme. Today, more than 900 have been through as a result of further urging and publicity.
On the question of organophosphates, those who gave any evidence of OP-type symptoms when being assessed at the medical assessment programme have indeed been


recalled and are being reassessed, and those whose treatment warrants it are being sent for further detailed neurological care and examination.
I know that the hon. Gentleman will read carefully the report of the organophosphate investigation team. He will read, in detail, about how OPs were used entirely properly, with the possibility of one small exception. I have every confidence that, given the circumstances, everything was done that could have been done to protect our troops.
I know nothing of the medical records of 10,000 personnel being wiped from a computer. Medical record keeping in the Gulf was not satisfactory. It was not good enough on behalf of our own troops. Nor was it good enough on behalf of the American troops. I asked the American Surgeon-General what he would do, most importantly, if America had to go to war again, and he said, "I would make absolutely sure that we had a far better system for keeping medical records." The same would apply to us.

Mr. Tom King: I commend my hon. Friend on his statement today. I thank him also for the recognition that he showed in his statement of the responsibility that I and my colleagues took to try to ensure that our troops who went to the Gulf were as well protected as they could be, including vaccination, from the fearsome weaponry that we knew that Saddam Hussein had, and which subsequent investigation by the United Nations commission revealed that he did indeed have.
There is no question but that we had to face quite unprecedented problems in trying to protect the health of our troops in the unexpected and suddenly occurring event that was the Gulf war. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government's actions throughout the difficult period of trying to assess the unexpected problems that have occurred since the end of the Gulf war have been guided at all times by the best medical advice? The reality is that the medical assessment programme has proved not to be the conclusive answer that many had hoped it would be.
I commend the Minister for his courage in coming forward and recognising the need for a change of approach, and for his determination to fulfil his final pledge—on which he carries the whole House with him—that we owe a duty of care to all our service men, ex-service men and veterans, not just at the time of conflict and when they are needed in times of war, but after the war is completed if they need our help and attention.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I warmly endorse and applaud the bold and entirely necessary decisions that he and the chiefs had to take at that time to ensure that, in unfamiliar territory, a long way away and against the potential of the most grotesque weapons that exist, our troops were as well protected as they possibly could be against horrific potential hazards. I am grateful to him for his recognition that we have at all times been guided by the best possible medical advice. Indeed, it would be ridiculous for Ministers to do anything other than accept the medical advice, and we have accepted it to the letter—whenever it has been offered to us, we have taken it.
I am also extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend, who was a former Secretary of State for Defence, for confirming that the Government, the chiefs and all those

responsible for the well-being of our men and women soldiers, sailors and airmen have an absolute duty of care. That is our cardinal responsibility, whether in peace or at war.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: I accept without reservation the Minister's good faith on this matter. Will he confirm that the information that he has given today was available in his Department not later than 19 July in a memorandum entitled "Briefing Note for Researchers—No. 3", which contains a summary saying that
a wide range of organophosphate compounds were extensively used by British personnel during Operation GRANBY"?
Why was that information not provided to the House before it rose for the summer recess?
Does the Minister agree that the circumstances which prompted today's statement constitute a substantial humiliation for his Department, and have been the source of wholly unnecessary anger, frustration and distress to Gulf war veterans and their families?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his kind words—more grateful than he will understand. What was in the memorandum, why that information did not come through properly and clearly to Ministers and why the House was not informed earlier are issues that will be covered in the investigation under the direction of the permanent under-secretary. The findings will be made available to the House, so the hon. and learned Gentleman will be able to see them. A grave error was made, and we must get to the bottom of it so as to ensure that it does not happen again.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether this was a humiliation. I have been through so many humiliations as a very junior Minister and as a slightly less junior Minister, that I regard coming to the House and making a statement on a matter such as this not as a humiliation, but as an evolving pattern of knowledge.
I must emphasise to the hon. and learned Gentleman that America has spent millions of dollars on research, which, although valuable, has provided no real answers. The American Government may have approached these matters differently from us, but it has always been with a view to finding the right and proper answers.
Both Governments have come to the inevitable conclusion, on the best scientific and medical advice available, that the only way to proceed is to undertake these two detailed epidemiological studies. I accept that that will cause frustration, and will not please the veterans who feel ill. It is a serious matter of great concern when a doctor is unable to tell people who feel very ill what is wrong with them.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: May I tell my hon. Friend the Minister that his statement is an enormous step forward for all those who have been concerned about Gulf veterans? On the Granada Television programme "The Line", did he say that no veteran or his or her family should be suffering hardship? May I also draw to his attention the plight of the Hill family—who live in my constituency—about whom I have already written to him? They are suffering great hardship. Would it be possible to pay them some interim compensation benefit?

Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that case with me; I shall investigate it thoroughly.


As he may know, the Ministry of Defence is in exactly the same position on the matter of compensation as any other employer in the land. Were a claim for compensation to be made against the Ministry of Defence and were it to be upheld by a court, we would, of course, have to pay compensation.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Madam Speaker, I intervene briefly as the honorary parliamentary adviser to the Royal British Legion. Is the Minister aware that the use of organophosphates much more widely than was previously reported is seen as an extremely important issue by many veterans of the Gulf war? What estimate has he now made of the number of service men and women who were exposed to the effects of organophosphates during their service in the Gulf? Again, is he claiming that we have nothing at all to learn from the United States—even from the President's commission of inquiry into the very sensitive set of issues involved?
Finally, what action is the Minister taking, in consultation with the Royal British Legion, to make it easier for people who are invited to attend medical examinations to do so? Is he aware that many of them have had great difficulties—I am talking in many cases about people who are seriously ill—in getting to and from these examinations?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising those issues, I shall deal first with his last point.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is an honorary adviser to the Royal British Legion, and that it is extremely grateful to him for that assistance. The other day, I met the Director-General of the Royal British Legion and asked him to provide me with a note of what we could reasonably do to help in the matter. I received the note two days ago, and I have asked for it to be carefully examined. I hope that I shall receive proposals on how I can help people overcome that difficulty.
On the right hon. Gentleman question on the United States and what lessons we have learnt, I have discussed the issue at great length with all the relevant people who are my opposite numbers in America. In their view, organophosphates do not appear to play a major role. We have liaised with them very carefully on the matter. I should tell the right hon. Gentleman that all the research by the Americans has merely confirmed to them that they must now embark on a much more detailed epidemiological study, which is what is occurring at King's college, London.
On the right hon. Gentleman's other points, on the nature and extent of use of OPs, I can only assure him that Group Captain Coker and his staff have been through all the records of every person who has been through the programme. From those records, they have found 54 people who need to be re-examined because of evidence of OP-type symptoms. That work is continuing, and they will be afforded the best care that we are able to give them.

Mr. Michael Colvin: The House will welcome the readiness with which the Ministry of Defence now discloses any new evidence or information available on the very complex subject of

so-called "Gulf war syndrome". The Minister's statement today is timely, because tomorrow the Defence Select Committee will again take evidence on the subject. Like the Ministry of Defence, the Committee preserves an open mind on whether Gulf war syndrome exists. The issue will clearly stay on our agenda for at least the three years that it will take to conduct the welcome epidemiological surveys.
Now that my hon. Friend has disclosed the extent to which the United States is co-operating with us on the research, will he tell us how much the Americans will contribute to the cost of the research here, and how much money we shall contribute to research over there? Will he explain why, in per capita terms, 100 times more Gulf veterans in the American armed forces than in our own are reporting symptoms of Gulf war syndrome?
My hon. Friend has told us how many veterans have reported for medical assessment. How many still await medical assessment? In addition, how many of those who have been recalled as a result of the recent disclosure of the use of organophosphate pesticides have been back for a medical assessment, and how many await assessment?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the Chairman of the Select Committee, whose work and report we greatly value. I understand and accept that the Committee will want to follow the matter closely over the next few years. Officials from my Department are looking forward to seeing his Committee tomorrow to consider the matters in greater detail.
I understand that the cost of the programme of epidemiological research at King's college amounts to $865,000. I am not sure how much we are spending on research in America. As I have said, we have unfettered access to all American Government research programmes through the generosity of the United States Administration.
As my hon. Friend knows, there is, at present, no evidence of any specific syndrome associated with service in the Gulf war. Approximately 20,000 United States veterans have been through the assessment programme. We should bear it in mind that the United States sent 500,000-plus troops to the Gulf—

Mr. Alfred Morris: Seven hundred thousand.

Mr. Soames: The United States sent 700,000 troops to the Gulf, and we sent 50,000. The United States has no national health service, but it has an excellent Veterans Administration. I cannot account for the disparity in the numbers. Some 921 veterans have been through our medical assessment programme. Following a trawl of the records, 54 have been recalled in connection with the use of organophosphates. Some 200 remain to be seen, and 97 have failed for the third time to show up.

Mr. Barry Jones: In welcoming the statement and the decent way in which it was made, may I remind the Minister of the cases of two of my constituents—Mr. Doyle of Buckley and Mr. Turnbull of Garden City—that are now before him? They suffered distressing illnesses as a consequence of their experiences in the Gulf.
Will the Minister meet those two constituents and me, so that we can hear first hand how soon they might have compensation and whether it will be before their illnesses


become worse? They suffer from bleeding gums, breathing difficulties, loss of concentration and bronchitic problems. One of them has also suffered the failure of his business. Our fine Gulf soldiers now suffer injustice. We look to the Minister for speedy action.

Mr. Soames: I am certainly prepared to see the hon. Gentleman to discuss those matters. If he would be good enough to let me have again the details of his constituents, I shall have their cases looked into. However, the hon. Gentleman should direct his inquiries to the war pensions people. Subject to all other things being equal, they appear to be entitled to war pensions. I have already made our position on compensation plain, but I should be happy to see the hon. Gentleman to go through those cases.

Dr. Charles Goodson-Wickes: May I commend my hon. Friend on the consistent good sense that he has applied to this sensitive matter? I particularly applaud the openness with which he made his statement and his willingness to admit that there are new factors that may or may not be relevant to the medical studies to be carried out. I declare an interest as co-chairman of the Friends of Medical Research in the House. I am particularly glad that the Medical Research Council is now involved, as well as the Royal College of Physicians.
Having said that, I am pleased that my hon. Friend is liaising closely with the United States authorities and their health investigation programme. Now that, in a spirit of openness, he has placed in the Library more details about the inoculation programmes, will he give the House an assurance that he will correlate the differences between the regimes of the United States and the United Kingdom?
May I also introduce a new factor that I do not expect my hon. Friend to answer this afternoon, and ask him to look at the French inoculation regime? It should be possible to acquire meaningful scientific information by taking cohorts from those three nationalities that served so ably in the Gulf.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, not least as he took part in the conflict, and is aware of the difficulties that ensued. I am grateful to him for what he said about the Medical Research Council, which has given us valuable and essential advice. On liaison with the United States, I can confirm that work is under way to compare the vaccination regimes of the United States and the United Kingdom. They were slightly different, because the intelligence assessments made by each side differed slightly.
As for working with the French, the Surgeon-General has been in contact with his French opposite number. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall continue to liaise with the French to ascertain whether they have anything helpful to bring to our important investigations.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Although I personally accept the good faith of the Minister, I hope that the under-secretary's report will reveal what happened to the cascade of precise parliamentary questions that flowed from the House on the subject. Were they casually dismissed? I have an unpalatable but constructive suggestion. If the Minister wants to get to the truth, he really should ask Patricia Doyle or Nicola Cherry to go to Iraq, where they will be well received by Dr. Mubarak,

the Iraqi Minister of Health, who, incidentally, is a Kurd. He is a distinguished doctor, with whom I discussed the matter at considerable length three years ago in Baghdad. The Iraqis suffered too, and they may have a good deal of crucial information about organophosphates.

Mr. Soames: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, it has been an unacceptable failure on a serious matter. The permanent under-secretary will conduct a detailed examination, the findings of which will be made available to the House at the first opportunity. Of course I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's proposal to Dr. Doyle and Professor Cherry.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most distressing aspects of the matter for those of us involved is to watch the deterioration of ex-service men and women who served in the Gulf? Three or four years ago, they were capable of holding down jobs, but now they require extensive hospital treatment. Much of their concern is that they do not know the reason for their suffering. I cannot believe that my hon. Friend, who, by his statement, has shown himself to be an honourable and decent man, really means them to drag him through the courts in order to get some compensation.
Is my hon. Friend aware that nearly 400 people have already been awarded war pensions, and several hundred more applications are in the pipeline? The War Pensions Agency is well ahead of the Ministry of Defence in accepting that the illness has some connection with Gulf war service, and his statement today establishes that. Will he please reconsider his answer to our hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Sir F. Montgomery) and consider some interim compensation payment to those who were hurt?

Mr. Soames: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend on her doughty support for the veterans, and thank her for the detailed and courteous manner in which she has corresponded with me. However, there really is no evidence of negligence on the part of the Ministry of Defence. One reason why this extremely important survey needs to be carried out is to find out why those people are ill. I truly accept the frustration and personal anguish of those who cannot find the reason for their illness. The only way in which we can get to the bottom of the matter is by genuine, rigorous scientific work that will reach a proper conclusion, and by using all the abilities and facilities that we have to liaise with all other people who are doing the work. That we will do; we will get to the bottom of the matter. Meanwhile, I am afraid that I cannot agree with her final point.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is the Minister aware that, less than a month ago, one of my constituents received a letter from his Department that said:
Whatever information there is concerning your injections is on that document"—
that is, the personal medical folder? It went on:
I have to remind you that certain injections and medication were administered during the Gulf War Campaign which were classified secret. Any such substances would not he listed on your medical documents and in view of the classification I do not have access to them".


Are we to assume that, as a result of today's statement, all people like my constituent will be informed of what was contained in any injections that they received, that that information will be given to their doctors and legal advisers, and that apologies will be sent to Gulf veterans for the undue pain and distress they suffered as a result of being refused the knowledge of what was pumped into their bodies?

Mr. Soames: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to let me have his constituent's details, I will certainly look into them. Exactly the point that I hope I made clear in my statement is that I am releasing today all the information relating to the vaccination of our troops during the Gulf war, which was previously withheld for very good, sound operational reasons. Such considerations have now passed, for a variety of reasons. The hon. Gentleman's constituent is perfectly entitled to know with what he was injected, although he would have been injected only on the basis of informed consent.

Mr. Robert Key: May I thank my hon. Friend for the humanity and sensitivity of his statement and the answers that he has given, to which I have listened very closely? I invite him to look forward, to ensure not only that medical record keeping is improved but that we press on with new methods of chemical and biological defence, continue work at the prevention and life sciences division of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency at Porton Down, do not lose work on replacing piridostigmine with physostigmine, and increase training at the nuclear, biological and chemical centre at Winterbourne Gunner, for the benefit of our troops and in order to maintain Britain's position as the world leader in nuclear, chemical and biological defence.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been a tremendous champion not only of the armed forces but of some of their less popular institutions, of which from time to time Porton Down has been one. It is a world centre of excellence, and will be grateful for his support. I can confirm that the remarkable work done at Porton Down will be continued, and that all of us who are graduates of Porton Down in one way or another want that training to continue at a very high level.
One of the cardinal lessons of the Gulf conflict concerns record keeping. A great deal of the trouble, difficulty and uncertainty would have been allayed if medical records had been better kept. The scenario was extremely fast-moving and very difficult. People were moving at a great pace from location to location. The speed at which the armoured brigades moved across country was devastating to behold—the conflict represented old-fashioned warfare on a huge scale.
We have to find a better way to keep records. The American Surgeon-General has shown me a dog tag that is being developed, on which there are a number of microchips. In future, if the programme works—I cannot envisage us not wanting to subscribe to it—it is hoped that a soldier receiving any form of treatment, immunisation or whatever on the battlefield would merely enter his dog tag into a machine that would mark it, so that all the material and information was immediately retrievable. Record

keeping is of the first importance, and we are doing a very great deal to ensure that, if we had to do it again, we would be well prepared.

Mr. John McWilliam: Is the Minister aware that I entirely accept that he and his fellow Ministers were unaware of the organophosphate situation at the time they made their statements both to the Defence Select Committee and to the House? However, the fact remains that the House and the Defence Select Committee, at the time it was compiling its interim report, were seriously misled about the facts.
Does the Minister understand the dangerous nature of all organophosphate compounds, and the fact that a difference in degree is all that distinguishes them from nerve agents? Will he give the House an assurance that not only the vaccination records, but details of all the medication any troops in the Gulf received, will be made available to their general practitioners? I hope the Minister will accept my view that misleading the House is one thing, but misleading sick former soldiers' medical consultants is entirely another, and should never happen again.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said—I really am—and I will pass on what he said to my noble Friend, who will share my gratitude. I understand the seriousness of what happened. It is, as I said—and we all feel this—a grave failing that must be rectified.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I understood about organophosphates. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), who is a champion of those who were affected in the sheep dip scenario, and who came to see me in a previous incarnation at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, knows well that I am extraordinarily aware of the question of OPs and that, for that reason, environmental health personnel in the military are well and effectively trained, know how those items are to be dealt with, and know the respect and care that they need in handling. I wish to reassure the House that all those involved in environmental health in the British Army are thoroughly trained in that regard.
On the question of GPs, I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), and he has my absolute assurance that GPs will have—and, I hope, have previously had—whatever information they need.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Like right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I deeply appreciate the statement that my hon. Friend has made today, his obvious sincerity and concern and the experience that he has in such matters. I do not mean to embarrass him by returning to the question of compensation, but there is a peculiar symmetry about the illnesses. One sees one person after another with something in common that is due to a common source or sources. Those people have one thing in common, as my hon. Friend is aware, because they served in the same theatre of warfare.
That being so, will my hon. Friend consider that there are perhaps ways and means to get over his difficulty? For example, is he aware of the difficulties facing those who suffered from a blood infection with the HIV virus who were also suffering from haemophilia? The haemophiliacs had to take a case to the Department of Health. Is he aware that the problem was solved by the setting up of a special fund, and that that absolved the Department of Health—rightly—of any responsibility?
Will my hon. Friend please consider ways to deal with this problem, because it will be some years—as he has said—before the mission of further research is completed? In that time, those who are ill will deteriorate, as has been pointed out by many right hon. and hon. Members. Surely there must be some measure of natural justice that will help to solve that problem.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He raises an extraordinarily important point, but no compensation claims have yet been pursued by lawyers for claimants and no writs have been served, although a list of 1,195 names of potential claimants has been lodged with the MOD. That list provides the symptoms or disease claimed to have been experienced by each person since the Gulf war, without specific allegations of negligence or even causation. The symptoms range from depression, nausea, headaches, fatigue, lapse of concentration, coughs and chest pains to cancer.
If and when any or all of those potential claims were to be pursued with specific allegations of causation and negligence, the Department would pay compensation to whomever it was legally due. I will pay careful attention to the points addressed by my right hon. Friend, and, if I may, I will write to him in greater detail.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Minister review the question of compensation, because he will recall that, in a civil case not too long ago, he was the Minister I approached, together with people in my constituency, to deal with people whose land had been poisoned by Coalite with dioxins? It was a two-year-long campaign. At the time, it was said that they would have to go through the courts to get compensation. Following that deputation, which the Minister will recall, he promised to help to get the compensation sorted out in one way or another. The net result was that an ex gratia payment was made to the farmers in my constituency, so they did not have to go to court.
The Minister cannot avoid responsibility for different cases when it suits him. The truth is that compensation can be sorted out. The right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) cited an example in which the Government played a leading role. If it is okay for farmers and for others, it should be okay to pay early compensation to the veterans.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman; I well remember the time he brought a delegation to see me—

Mr. Skinner: There were 40 of them.

Mr. Soames: Yes, 40 of them, in a room for about 10.
I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that any Gulf veteran who can be shown to be suffering from illness caused by the Department's negligence will be entitled to compensation in line with common law principles.

Mr. Bill Walker: My hon. Friend will be aware of how the military looks after its ex-service men; its record is impeccable. It is impeccable because scientific and medical evidence is always necessary before action is taken. We need think only of the problems that followed the Japanese prisoners and others to realise the record that exists. However, it is right that action should be taken only

on the basis of facts that can be proven, as otherwise we would open up the most appalling can of worms, going back to the second world war.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important point. I concur with what he said, and qualify it only by saying that I think it extremely important that the veterans understand that we understand, truly, the anguish they feel in the position they are in, and therefore our absolute determination to try to get to the bottom of matters—but, as my hon. Friend said, only by proper, rigorous and scientific assessment of the facts and then coming to as proper, decent and early a conclusion as we can.

Mr. David Winnick: Is not a two-way process involved? First, there is the readiness of the armed forces always to go into action, as was the case six and a half years ago, in a justified action against criminal oppression. Secondly, there is the readiness of the Government, at all times, to help those veterans who have been seriously harmed as a result of military action. Is there not bound to have been much concern, frustration and, indeed, anger among the veterans simply to get the MOD to get anywhere near the situation that has been explained to the House today?
On compensation, if the Minister really believes that those veterans should be expected to go through long court actions, thereby adding further difficulty and delay, he has misread the feeling on both sides of the House. There is undoubtedly a strong wish, which has been expressed today by Conservative and, now, Labour Members, that justice should be done for those war veterans who carried out their duties so honourably.

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman was on to a good point at the beginning of his remarks. Clearly, the health, wealth and security of our troops and veterans are of prime concern to the Government, the chiefs and all those involved. As the hon. Gentleman rightly implied, it is essential that the fighting troops of the British armed forces have confidence that they will be properly looked after in the event of injury or illness.
I also accept that it is important that we try to come to as speedy a conclusion as we can; but we cannot do so without having the proper, rigorous, scientific facts upon which to base our case. That does not alter the fact that I agree with the hon. Gentleman that, on both sides of the House, there runs a golden chain of genuine sympathy and concern for those people who find themselves in a bad state.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I noticed that the last two Members I called, although they raised implied questions, asked no direct questions. The interventions are becoming statements. I must have brisk questions. The statement has been running for an hour.

Mr. Keith Mans: My hon. Friend's statement is very welcome, for this reason among others: it has drawn attention to shortcomings in the way in which his Department has answered questions from Members of Parliament, and, indeed, from the Select Committee.
In that light, would my hon. Friend consider looking at the procedure adopted for answering questions in a wider field, to prevent the same thing from happening elsewhere?


The fact remains that one of the problems that have resulted from this difficulty is that many people who feel that their disease may have been a consequence of what happened in the Gulf have lost confidence—perhaps unjustifiably—in the Ministry of Defence's ability to discover the true reasons for what is wrong with them.

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There have clearly been unacceptable failings and shortcomings, which will be dealt with by the permanent under-secretary's inquiry. The results will be made available to the House as soon as that can decently be done, and we shall certainly be looking at the way in which information comes in for parliamentary questions.
I emphasise that, in my judgment and my experience of the Ministry of Defence, this particular failure was indeed an aberration. The advice that we are given is nearly always impeccable and of the highest standard. On this occasion, however, there has been a grievous shortcoming, which must be dealt with. I very much take my hon. Friend's point, especially what he said about confidence.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Does the Minister not accept that, while the first questions about organophosphates may well have been asked in 1994, questions about the unique health hazards involved in the Gulf war were asked as early as 1991—in January, I believe? It was made clear then that depleted-uranium-tipped shells were being used in huge quantities, and that that could lead to radioactive dust across the battlefield. Immediately after the war, the possibility was raised that a cocktail of carcinogenic chemicals was coming from the oil wells, and later the possibility of damage caused by injections was raised.
Is it not true that the many Members of Parliament who raised those issues in 1991, 1992 and 1993 were treated to complacent and indifferent answers by the Minister's Department? This study should have begun in 1991: it is now five years late, and veterans who, in many cases, lost their health as a result of that war will receive their compensation 10 years after they should have received it. Is that not a disgrace? Should not the Minister re-examine his statement, and apologise for ignoring questions about those three other health hazards that were tabled as early as January 1991?

Mr. Soames: The hon. Gentleman spoiled an initially good case with a piece of histrionic rant. He spoke of depleted uranium and the carcinogenic effects of burning oil wells; it is interesting to note that there is no sign of any illness among the indigenous populations of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, who would have been expected to be the first to suffer. As for the hon. Gentleman's mention of complacency, I hope that he does not think that I am complacent. I am not, and nor is my Department.
We are determined to get to the bottom of this, but it is, of necessity, a long-term programme. The minute that serious concerns were raised about the health of Gulf veterans, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, established the medical assessment programme. I think that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) will agree

that that programme was set up at almost the same time as the Americans established their medical assessment programme. We have almost run in tandem.
I am not saying that what we have done is perfect. I have no doubt that, with hindsight, we will be shown that—as with all things—we could have done it better; but we have had to do it guided by the light of the best advice, the best science and the best possible interests of all those young men and women who went to the Gulf and will soldier in the future.

Mr. Andrew Robathan: I believe that it is correct that the force gathered in the Gulf in 1991 was the largest allied force to be gathered since the second world war. Have any comparable studies been made of health and sickness rates, both in theatre and when those concerned have returned to the United Kingdom, in the case of comparable campaigns?
Will my hon. Friend reassure me that it remains a duty and a priority of all commanders, up to and including the Ministry of Defence, to look after the health and welfare of their service personnel, for both humanitarian and compassionate reasons?
Finally, may I tell my hon. Friend that, although I welcome these further steps, among the many people I have known who served in the Gulf, I have yet to meet one who either believes that he has Gulf war syndrome or knows of anyone who believes himself to be suffering from it?

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His experience in the Gulf war has always been of importance in the questioning of Government policy in the Gulf. As a former serving officer, he knows—and I can confirm—that the health and welfare of those under one's command are a prime charge: there is no more important obligation for an officer or non-commissioned officer.
On my hon. Friend's first question, no comparable survey has been undertaken in this country. The United States of America undertook a similar epidemiological study, although not with the same parameters or scientific rigour, and found no increase in mortality, hospitalisation or illness among those who went to the Gulf as compared with those who did not. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his support in our deliberations on this extremely difficult matter.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I accept the reasons given by the Minister for the House having been misled, but will he discuss with the Prime Minister the fact that, if I were to have an Adjournment debate tonight on pesticides, outside the stewardship of the Ministry of Defence, the relevant Minister would stand up and say that there was no problem? There should be regard across the Government to the fact that Ministers and civil servants in other Departments are pooh-poohing the problem posed by the pesticides, named in the Surgeon-General's report, that are being used recklessly in industry and in domestic situations.
It is time that Government Departments other than the Ministry of Defence—the Department of Health, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and the


Department for Education and Employment—recognised that there is genuine concern about the pesticides being used in the domestic as well as the military sphere.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, not least because he is a genuine champion of the veterans and the armed forces. On OPs, however, I find myself in respectful disagreement with him.
As the hon. Member for North Cornwall knows—he knows more about the subject than anyone else in the House—all the Government Departments are extremely well informed on those matters. When I was in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, it was extremely well informed. The Health and Safety Executive, the Department of Health, the Ministry of Defence and all the other Departments liaise regularly to ensure that exactly such problems as the hon. Gentleman outlined cannot arise. I take his point, however, and will ensure that it is passed on.

Mr. Edward Garnier: In our understandable sympathy for those who served in the Gulf and have an illness, is there not a danger of confusing a correlation between service in the Gulf and an illness, with a causal link? We should not be deflected from a proper study of the medical and scientific evidence and reach a verdict prematurely.

Mr. Soames: I am very grateful to my hon. and learned Friend, who has effectively hit the nail on the head. That is exactly the point about the scientific research. The Americans, having chased valuable but often will-o'-the-wisp research projects, have come back to the conclusion that not causal research but the careful and detailed, albeit lengthy and frustrating, work of epidemiology surveys is required to get to the bottom of the problem. Those surveys will come up with the answer, from which it may be possible to do the causal research that may well be necessary later.

Mr. Nick Ainger: If the Gulf war was repeated, would the delivery of OPs be effected as it was in 1990 and 1991, or, bearing in mind what we have learnt since 1991, especially in relation to sheep dip, would different means of delivering OPs be employed—or would they not be used at all? I seek an assurance because the Minister told us that, except on one occasion, the rules for the delivery of OPs were followed.

Mr. Soames: I assure the hon. Gentleman that substantial lessons have been learnt from the campaign. They will be applied not only in respect of the holding and delivery of stock and the functioning of the supply chain but in respect of the training of environmental health personnel and doctors and of the preparation of people for what is required.
However, British forces in the desert faced a real and substantial health hazard, especially from fly-borne diseases, about which the hon. Gentleman knows. In the last war, the 8th Army suffered seriously from such diseases. It is important that we should keep matters in proportion. I agree with what lies behind the hon. Gentleman's question, and I assure him that all the lessons that needed to be learnt have been learnt.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important aspects of his statement was his explanation of the degree of co-operation between the United Kingdom and the United States? Will

he give further detail on the extent to which research runs in parallel and the extent to which it is different, notwithstanding that we use different drugs? How much of the research is common, and how much cross-checking is possible?

Mr. Soames: My hon. Friend is right to say that the degree of co-operation is important. Contact about the work and cross-checking is almost daily. The research programmes are going to be carefully co-ordinated in respect of the epidemiological surveys. However, to date most of the American research has been causal, and, as we now know, that is not as valuable as we might have hoped.
I assure my hon. Friend that co-operation is extremely close, to the extent that a British officer has recently commenced sitting on the American research board that supervises the matter. The Americans have been good enough to accept a Royal Army Medical Corps lieutenant-colonel into the Department of Defense Gulf health research team, where he will be able to gain and pass to us most valuable oversight, of which we shall make the best use.

Mr. John Hutton: On the use of organophosphate pesticides, can the Minister confirm that none of the British service men involved in delousing Iraqi prisoners of war was issued with protective clothing? One of those service men is my constituent Mervyn Gray, who has been unable to work since his return from the Gulf. In those circumstances, how was it possible for the Minister's inquiry to conclude that there was no inappropriate use of organophosphate chemicals?

Mr. Soames: I know that the hon. Gentleman has followed the matter closely: he and I debated it at the time of the statement on the defence estimates. Environmental health personnel and trained regimental hygiene duty staff are trained to use personal protection equipment at all times when using pesticides. The investigation noted the allegation that the hon. Gentleman and others have made that no PP equipment was available, but could not substantiate it. If he has detailed evidence, I should be very grateful if he would let me have it forthwith.

Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister has been kind enough to mention the all-party group that deals with organophosphate pesticides that I convene. In answer to his unsolicited testimonial, I absolve him personally of misleading the House in his answers to our questions.
Will the Minister review his answer to the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mrs. Currie), which disclaimed any negligence by his Department? He knows that, as long as ago as 1987, an explicit statement was sent out warning of the dangers of using OPs in certain circumstances. If his Department had, at every level, including commanders in the field, followed the advice of the Ministry of Agriculture, the Department of Health and the Health and Safety Executive, there would now be no question of anyone being even suspected of having been affected by exposure to OPs.

Mr. Soames: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I cannot resile from the answer that I gave my hon. Friend. I repeat that any Gulf veteran who can be shown to be suffering from illness caused by the Department's negligence will be entitled to compensation in line with common law principles.

Armoured Vehicles (Indonesia)

Sir David Steel: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the written answers from the President of the Board of Trade yesterday, revealing that he was issuing licences for the sale of armoured vehicles to the Government of Indonesia.
This is a serious and specific important matter. In columns 29 and 30 of today's Hansard, there are two written answers. One states that the President of the Board of Trade is issuing a licence for the export of 50 armoured vehicles and associated equipment to the Indonesian army, and a variety of vehicles to the Indonesian police, including seven Tactica water canon. That news reaches the House on the day that two distinguished civil rights campaigners are in Oslo to receive the Nobel peace prize for their work in East Timor. It is a disgrace that we should learn such important and controversial news by means of a written answer in Hansard today.
The matter is important, because, leaving aside the occupation of East Timor, this summer there were street demonstrations in the capital of Indonesia, Djakarta, in support of the democratic opposition party. A newspaper report stated:
Onlookers said soldiers hit people indiscriminately, threw stones and bottles, and smashed car windows.
Many people were seen leaving the area with blood streaming down their faces and one person was reported to have been run over by an armoured car and killed. PDI organisers said more than 100 marchers were injured.
In his answers, the President of the Board of Trade says that he issued the licences after consultation with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence. My right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) wrote to the Secretary of State for

Defence about exports of equipment to Indonesia after his visit to Djakarta in July. On 3 July, the Secretary of State replied:
We do not export equipment likely to be used for internal repression.
What do Ministers think water canon are for? They are certainly not for watering the gardens of the presidential palace.
On my visit to Djakarta two years ago, it became obvious that journalists, including newspaper editors, are frightened to criticise the Government because their licences to print newspapers are suspended if they do. I believe that the House, as the mother of parliaments, should be concerned when our Government actively support the suppression of normal democratic values and civil rights. That is why I seek leave.

Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. As he knows, I must give my decision without giving any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

BILL PRESENTED

GOVERNMENT OF WALES

Dr. John Marek, supported by Mr. Alex Carlile, Mrs. Ann Clwyd, Mr. Paul Flynn, Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones, Mr. John McAllion and Mr. Dafydd Wigley, presented a Bill to make provision for the future government of Wales and for the establishment of a parliament for Wales, to be known as Senedd; to make provision as respects Wales concerning public bodies, the protection of the consumer and the environment, the administration of justice, broadcasting and relations with the European Union; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 17 January, and to be printed [Bill 53].

Licensing (Reform)

Mr. Paddy Tipping: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to reform the system of liquor licensing.
The Bill's purpose is to reform licensing law by abolishing the system of permitted or opening hours for licensed premises while retaining sufficient safeguards to ensure that the public in the vicinity are not unreasonably disturbed. It would abolish the absolute discretion of licensing justices to control the establishment or conduct of licensed premises and abolish children's certificates.
Our present licensing laws are complicated, archaic and confusing. Few people understand them; they need urgent reform. The historic and traditional values of our pubs need to be set in modern times. The current Licensing Act dates from 1961, when the law was last reviewed. It was consolidated in 1964, and has no fewer than 204 sections and 11 active schedules. There have been numerous amendments, and another 17 sections have been added. So confusing has it become that a key section on late-night extension is now known as section 78ZA. From a purely logistical point of view, the legislation needs reform.
Piecemeal reform is no longer acceptable. A comprehensive review is necessary. The present law is antiquated and outdated. It contains whole sections which were included in one of the first Alehouse Acts passed at the time of George IV, which was also known as the Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Act 1828. In those days, there were closing times, not permitted hours. The closing times were intended merely to prevent potential disturbance at night and during Sunday services, although alehouses could open at all other times.
However, the Licensing Act 1872 forms the basis of the current law. Large sections of the Act are still in force and have not been substantially repealed or amended since that time. Procedure for the granting, renewal and transfer of licences has not substantially changed. It has to be remembered that, in those times, the vast majority of licences were granted to individuals who ran alehouses, inns, refreshment houses and off-licences. There were mainly local breweries with local tenants. There were no national breweries, retail groups, themed bars or restaurant chains, and there was no training or supervision. The laws which were in force then are hardly suited to the modern licensing needs of the 21st century.
The Bill attempts to update the legislation. It first deals with opening or permitted hours. Permitted hours are a hangover from the first world war and the requirement to get the munitions workers back to the factories in the afternoons. They are truly an anachronism, and they serve no useful purpose. Even the Association of Chief Police Officers has recommended that permitted hours as such be abolished. In its recent submission to the Home Office, it pointed out that removing the flashpoints of 11.30 pm and 2.30 am when pubs and clubs turned out would dramatically reduce violent confrontation and make policing easier during those periods.
The Bill seeks to abolish permitted hours on licensed premises, while ensuring that local residents are protected from unreasonable noise and disturbance. Pubs and clubs will be able to open when they want. The market will dictate when they open. Justices will have the power to

issue an order for a closing period when they think it appropriate. The police and the licensee will have the opportunity to appeal against such an order or ask for it to be revoked.
Complaints are sometimes made that licensing magistrates behave like barons in their own lands. The present system lacks transparency and leads to wide variations between benches. It just cannot make sense for Birmingham, which has twice the population of Nottingham, to have only half the number of late licences that Nottingham has. Such variations highlight the inadequacies of the present Act. Similarly, the Bill will stop people who want to drink later rushing from one licensing area to another, which permits later drinking, say, during the Christmas period.
What is more, the second focus of the Bill challenges the absolute discretion of the justices. In the modern leisure society, decisions on the viability of premises and their attraction to customers should properly be taken by the companies and operators who are risking their money, together with the appropriate planning authority, which, in every case, would give permission for any new venture. The control of the justices has been criticised as too dictatorial, and out of keeping with modern business needs.
Removal of the absolute authority of justices, but allowing them to refuse applications for inappropriate or unsuitable premises, has long been canvassed, as has the requirement for justices to give clear written reasons for refusing to grant a licence, to give the applicants to put things right if they can. I therefore propose that the discretion of the justices to grant or refuse a new licence should be limited to those areas outlined in the Bill. That will retain proper controls, but allow new entrants to the licensed trade to compete with established premises if they think that they have suitable premises and are fit and proper to hold a licence.
To those who say that the Bill will open the floodgates to new licences, I point out that the statistics show that the number of public houses is falling, not as a result of unfair competition from within but because there are competing leisure activities elsewhere, in particular home consumption. One cannot have it both ways. Either there are too many licensed outlets or they are not of the type that the customer wants. That is not a choice that justices should make. The choice of the consumer is clearly paramount.
The third proposal in the Bill is one which I believe will be widely welcomed. Children's certificates have been a disaster. They were introduced as a deregulation measure, but quickly evolved into an additional form of licence, with procedures for application, complicated requirements from licensing committees, and considerable extra work for clerks and court administrators. So inhibiting are some of the conditions imposed that recent Home Office statistics show that only 3.7 per cent. of the pubs in England and Wales have been granted certificates. In the past year, among 75,000 public houses, only a few more than 1,000 certificates were granted.
The city of York, as a matter of policy, does not entertain children's certificates. It relies on the good sense of local licensees and the police to ensure that children are allowed only in pubs with a suitable environment. In contrast to York, licensing benches across the country apply differing and restrictive conditions. In Birmingham,


children's certificates exclude children in term time. One bench forbids children to sit on stools; no domines are allowed; children must be out of the line of sight of televisions. The list goes on. I believe that those judgments should properly be made by parents, not licensing benches.
Therefore, I propose to turn the burden of proof around and abolish the cumbersome and unpopular certificates. I propose that in their place, where necessary, a restriction order should be placed on unsuitable premises where it is felt appropriate that young children should not be allowed. The presence of young people under 14 is already permitted in a number of premises where alcohol is supplied and consumed, without creating problems of discipline.
Under-age drinking is and always has been a separate issue from that of allowing children under 14 in licensed premises. It is a hangover from the images evoked by Hogarth and others of youngsters in alehouses and gin palaces. The modern licensed outlet has clearly appealed more and more to families, who are inhibited from making full use of the facilities by the restrictions and the extra conditions imposed. They are unnecessary, and should be done away with.
This is a modest but necessary Bill. It has much support from bodies that take an interest in licensing. Many licensing magistrates acknowledge that the time for change has come. In today's society, there are ready opportunities to travel abroad. British residents are impressed by the cafés on the continent, which have become a symbol of the sort of place to which people can happily take their family. That trend exists here in Britain, and it is unstoppable.
In contrast, foreign visitors to Britain find our licensing laws bemusing. Like them, I have to confess that I am still not entirely clear where and when I can take my children into a pub. The Bill is not the final answer. The imminent general election means that it has little prospect of becoming law. The purpose of the Bill is to highlight the issue and raise its profile. The Bill is a vehicle for discussion and debate. It is merely a first step to comprehensive legislation—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman seek to oppose the Bill?

Mr. Mackinlay: Yes. I pick up where my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping) concluded.

He said that it was a matter for debate. He wanted to canvass the idea of licensing reform. That is perfectly legitimate, but I will not acquiesce by my silence in the approval of the Bill.
The arguments which my hon. Friend has advanced are driven largely by the industry, which has selfish interests that are not always the same as those of the community as a whole.
Although I fully accept that existing regulations and legislation are not ideal and that there is a case for a thorough review, such a review should be comprehensive, after a great deal of debate and discussion. There is a danger that, if we acquiesce in approval of a ten-minute Bill, we give a nod and a wink to various people who think that they need to make just one more shove, do some more extensive lobbying or use the Parliamentary Beer Club to get where they want, probably on the back of some wider or deeper, voluminous legislation. I think that that is wrong.
I listened carefully to the my hon. Friend's speech. I had no prior knowledge of his arguments, and I had hoped that they would relate to the problem of smuggling, which substantially disadvantages British industry and small businesses such as off-licences. My attention was focused, however, by his reference to market forces and to the growing and transformed leisure industry.
My hon, Friend also mentioned theme parks, and here I have to declare an interest: I live near a theme park, and it is a pain in the neck. The park started in a small way, but the interests of local residents and neighbours of such leisure interests are subordinated to the avaricious and selfish interests of many of those who run the leisure industry. I perceive those interests as the theme behind the Bill.
For that reason, I have to register my objection to what might, on the face of it, appear to be an innocuous change. The most rigorous examination is justified before the House, on the nod, acquiesces and grants leave to bring in such a Bill.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Paddy Tipping, Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. Alan Meale.

LICENSING (REFORM)

Mr. Paddy Tipping accordingly presented a Bill to reform the system of liquor licensing: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 February, and to be printed [Bill 52].

ESTIMATES DAY

[1ST ALLOTTED DAY, 1ST PART]

VOTE ON ACCOUNT: 1997–98

Class XVII, Vote 1

Government Information

[Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of Session 1995–96 on Open Government (HC 84) and the First Special Report from the Committee of Session 1996–97 containing the Government Response thereto (HC 75).]
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £78,288,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the year ending on 31st March 1998 for expenditure by the Office of the Minister for Public Service on the central management of the Civil Service; expenditure resulting from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's chairmanship of the BSE Implementation Committee; expenditure on privatisation of executive agencies; and certain other services.— [Mr. Freeman.]

Mr. James Pawsey: This is the second debate this year that has been initiated by the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. The first was on the Child Support Agency and this one is on freedom of information. That is a clear sign of the breadth of the work and scope of the Select Committee. Today's debate stems from the Committee's report, published on 20 March 1996, on open government.
Currently there is in place a code of practice on access to Government information. The code came into effect on 4 April 1994. The effectiveness of the code is guaranteed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, who acts as the mechanism for external review. The Select Committee is empowered to
call Departments and Ministers to account for failure to supply information in accordance with the code.
The code has now been in operation for some two years and now might be an appropriate time to review its effectiveness.
I have no doubt that the code has strengthened the democratic process, and it has done so in at least three distinct ways. First, it has brought greater objectivity to personal files. Secondly, it has improved decision making both by Ministers and by public servants. Thirdly, it ensures better-informed debate. The White Paper, "Open Government", stated:
At the heart of the Government's philosophy is a belief in the need to return to individual citizens the power and means to make their own choices and to determine their own priorities. The Government has insisted that public institutions exist to serve the individual, and not the other way about.
Few in this House would quarrel with that description. It is an entirely laudable objective and one that I support. The code goes a long way towards achieving that aim.
I am a late convert to the principle of freedom of information. I had previously believed that there are certain areas of Government activity that should remain secret, such activity being cloaked, as the Germans say, under "Nacht und Nebel". Indeed, it might reassure the House to learn that, even in countries that have freedom of information Acts, certain activities of Government remain secret. There clearly must be limits to the openness of government. No freedom of information regime grants completely unlimited access to all Government information; to allow such access would make government and responsible decision making impossible.
The code currently contains exemptions similar to those found in parliamentary legislation abroad. The House will be aware that one of the arguments most often used against freedom of information is that it will harm the frankness and the candour of decision making and thus damage the process of government. Clearly, that danger must be avoided; however, the code has, as one of its exemptions:
Information whose disclosure would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion".
At the end of the day, it is the ombudsman's responsibility to judge whether exemption has been properly used, or whether it is an excuse to deny the right to information.
The Select Committee has made it clear that it is now necessary to go much further than a code or, indeed, an Act of Parliament. We argue that there should be a change to the culture of public service, from an assumption of secrecy to an assumption of openness. We are therefore pleased to note that the Government have now agreed to revise the code in line with the Select Committee's recommendation, to make clear the principle of availability of information. I shall be interested to hear from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he believes that that change is forthcoming and what further measures he proposes, to ensure that the civil service's understandable instinct for concealment is replaced by an instinct for disclosure.

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): My hon. Friend spoke about "Nacht und Nebel"—night and fog—but surely that applies not only to civil servants, but to quasi-Government agencies, such as the Benefits Agency? How will his code of practice apply to such bodies?

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—his knowledge of German is, I suspect, equal to my own. The code of openness applies to the agencies as well: they are required to provide additional information as is thought necessary.
My argument is that the code remains only a code and does not go far enough. We should introduce a statutory right. We need an Act of Parliament to ensure that the citizen has a right of access, to see what lies on his or her file.
The Committee welcomed the fact that a public interest test was included in the code, which states:
It should be considered whether any harm or prejudice arising from public disclosure is outweighed by the public interest in making information available".
It would be helpful, therefore, were we to read more evidence in the ombudsman's reports that civil servants are actively considering the public interest before refusing information.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am interested in the fact that the hon. Gentleman


repeatedly mentions civil servants. He is aware that civil servants accept political and certainly day-to-day business direction from Ministers. That appears to be missing from his equation. I am not sure how or why.

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Lady intervenes relatively early in my speech—

Mrs. Dunwoody: Ah.

Mr. Pawsey: If she contains herself a little longer, she will find that I refer to Ministers being more open just as much as I believe that their civil servants should be more open.
One of the great benefits of freedom of information is the right that it gives citizens to know more about records that are maintained about them. Citizens should be able to read what a civil servant writes about them. The code is of recent inception and is not well known, so it is not well used. I hope that one of the by-products of the debate will be to draw attention to the existence of the code and give it greater publicity, so that the ombudsman receives more complaints.
Even if the debate attracts attention to the code, I do not believe that the code goes far enough. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant), a code remains a code, and I believe that the citizen should be given much greater statutory rights.
Secondly, freedom of information might result in more comments being made informally and orally instead of in writing. I understand the point. It should not, however, be forgotten that decisions on individuals' files might have to be justified later. If the written documentation proves inadequate to justify a decision, the decision maker will be in difficulty. Recently, a Minister in Australia resigned precisely because there was no written audit trail to account for decisions that she had taken.
I shall now describe some of the benefits that result from open government. In the White Paper, the Government stated that open government was
part of an effective democracy".
Targets and guarantees of service should be set out. Complaints procedures should be set down and publicised. The right to Government information is part of that culture change.
I am delighted that members of the Select Committee, who played an important part in gathering information, are present in the Chamber. When the Select Committee took evidence, it became clear that freedom of information Acts concentrate the bureaucratic mind. A minor example taken from Australia remains firmly in my mind and, I suspect, in the mind of hon. Members who heard it. In relation to an interview that took place prior to the introduction of the Freedom of Information Act in Australia, a note in the margin of a letter read—this may annoy the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—
Not bad for a woman".

Clearly, after the Freedom of Information Act, such a comment would be unthinkable. When notes become readily available, prejudice and bigotry diminish.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: rose—

Mr. Pawsey: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is an indefatigable member of the Select Committee and works exceedingly hard. I am pleased, but not surprised, to see him in his place.

Mr. Campbell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for those kind words.
Another point emerged from evidence that we took about the Australian experience. Let us say that there was a personal file on Mr. A. The Freedom of Information Act meant that any document could be obtained, so if a person wanted to make a comment about Mr. A. that they did not want to be read, they would write it on a sticky yellow post-it note and attach it to a document in the file. Then, if that document was requested, the yellow note was removed and the document handed over, but the real stuff was not in it. We found that that was happening in Australia. We want to watch carefully to ensure that it does not happen here.

Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. His memory of what takes place in Australia is good, and I acknowledge the strength of what he says.

Mr. Fabricant: A far more despicable example of such a practice occurred at the end of the second world war. The British and American authorities in Germany attached paper clips to files of some German prisoners of war who were known to be members of the Waffen-SS. If the paper clip was attached, it showed that they would work for the new occupying powers and would not be held to trial.

Mr. Pawsey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I should, however, remind my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) of the remarks that I made earlier about the audit trail. Obviously, if the audit trail is incomplete because post-it notes have been removed, the person responsible for the information must answer.

Mr. Michael Lord: My hon. Friend knows that, although the Committee's view may lean toward statute, some of us are not so keen on that route and believe that the code should be given longer to work. Is my hon. Friend aware that, before the debate, there was a statement from the Ministry of Defence about Gulf war syndrome?

Mr. Pawsey: indicated assent.

Mr. Lord: The major problem was the lack of accurate records, which is relevant to what we are discussing. Does my hon. Friend agree that the thing that has struck the Committee most about our visit to Australia—and in much of our deliberations on this issue—is the difference between individuals' records, and the issue of making them available to individuals, and state papers, which fall into an entirely different category?

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend is right to make that point. He is another conscientious member of the Select


Committee; he is always present. He mentioned the Gulf war syndrome, and I believed that he was about to say that those who believe that they have been injured as a result of service in the Gulf war and those who believe that the Ministry of Defence has not dealt satisfactorily with their case, may be able to refer it to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, so that he can examine matters to discover whether there are any points that he should seize on. My hon. Friend has touched on an interesting subject.
I said that, with the introduction of the code and, I hope, the introduction of an Act, government would become more open. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire, I believe that to be of great benefit to the average citizen. It concerns me a great deal.
During our investigations, we learnt of a less helpful phenomenon—the development of what are called "fishing expeditions". They occurred when a pressure group or an Opposition Member of Parliament demanded substantial amounts of information—records, documents and papers. That operation is extremely expensive and time-consuming. If the experience of Australia is anything to go by, in many cases, that is unwarranted. Any freedom of information Act introduced in the United Kingdom would, therefore, have to take careful note of that possibility.
Government seeks to protect itself against the possibility of fishing expeditions. We were told in Australia that one method of achieving that was to take advantage of the exemption provided for Cabinet papers and Cabinet documents. To frustrate fishing expeditions—

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Wheeled through the Cabinet Office.

Mr. Pawsey: Exactly as the hon. Gentleman says, trolley-loads of documents were wheeled through the Cabinet Office—in one door and out of the other. They were then effectively protected from outside scrutiny.
My personal view is that the principal objective of a freedom of information Act should be to benefit the individual citizen and to give citizens the right to obtain information about their own specific cases. If Government and Ministers were more open, that would bring additional benefits and advantages to the man in the street. That was the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk (Mr. Lord) and by me in our references to Gulf war syndrome.
Another virtue of openness is the improved decision making that goes with it. As one Australian colourfully said in evidence to us,
Sunlight is the best detergent.
A recent review of the operation of the FOI Act in Australia concluded:
The Act has had a marked impact on the way agencies make decisions and the way they record information. The FOI Act has focused decision makers' minds on the need to base decisions on relevant factors and to record the decision making process. The knowledge that decisions and processes are open to scrutiny, including under an FOI Act, imposes a constant discipline on the public sector.
I must tell my right hon. Friend the Minister that I believe that that discipline would be just as effective in the United Kingdom as it is in Australia.

Mr. Lord: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a grave danger in comparing the operations of one nation

with those of another, and trying to impose new legislation on one country simply because it exists in another country? He will remember that when we visited Australia, one of the reasons given for introducing the law was corruption. Many people mentioned corruption to us, and we were given the impression that that was quite widespread. That does not apply in this country.
Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that even though the statute exists in Australia, people there have found numerous ways of getting round it, blocking it and making life difficult at the decision-making level? Finally, does my hon. Friend acknowledge that several senior people in Australia, including some of those who had been responsible for introducing the legislation, admitted to us that in some cases it had made decision taking at the higher level more difficult?

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend raises some interesting points, but I am not sure that I go all the way with him. I believe that we can learn from the examples and experiences of other countries. I do not believe, however, that it is wise to transplant legislation from one country to another. There is virtue in learning from countries that have a democracy broadly similar to our own. Our Parliament was translated to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States—all countries that have FOI. I believe that, generally, FOI works well in those countries.
I am a late convert to FOI. I am a convert because I want additional power to be placed in the hands of the ordinary citizen. I want ordinary citizens to see what is written about them by civil servants. We Conservatives have a slogan: "Trust the people." I want that translated from a slogan to actuality. I want the people to enjoy that trust, and to see what is written about them. I am not convinced that what is written about them at present is always entirely fair, straight and honest. For that reason, I have become converted to the FOI regime.

Mr. David Nicholson: My hon. Friend knows that, unfortunately, I was unable to accompany the Committee to Australia. I do not know what reflections he might have on the important matter of health and safety, which was brought to my attention four or five years ago after a potentially disastrous accident involving a train carrying chemicals in my constituency. The train was derailed in open country; if it had been derailed in either of the towns on either side of the site of the accident, the result would have been cataclysmic.
This afternoon, as my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk (Mr. Lord) pointed out, we heard a grave statement from the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about Gulf war illness and the fact that inadequate—let us say just inadequate—replies were given to inquiries in the House in past years. That is an extremely grave matter, in which I am interested because of the affliction that has affected several farmers in my constituency and in the south-west, arising from the use of organophosphate dips for treating sheep. Health and safety is a very important matter of generic concern.

Mr. Pawsey: My hon. Friend is a member of the Select Committee and plays a major part in its workings and deliberations. I am grateful to him for his intervention. He makes a valid point and argues my case better than I could.
A further benefit of FOI is that it results in better-informed public debate. Chairman Mao said, "Knowledge is power." I want that knowledge and power to be placed firmly in the hands of my fellow citizens.
Let me quote the words of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who, I hope, will speak in the debate. When he came before Committee, he said:
In a parliamentary democracy it is extremely important that all those who take an interest … should know the facts behind a particular Government decision, the reasoning behind an administrative action, so that there can be informed debate.
My right hon. Friend was right. No one on the Select Committee would quarrel with what he said.
I believe—as does my right hon. Friend, I think—that open government makes better government. It gives less opportunity for mistakes to be swept under ministerial carpets or under the departmental carpet. It allows greater opportunity for righting wrongs and means that the people of this country would be even more fairly governed.
The Government have asked the ombudsman to consider complaints relating to the refusal of information covered under the terms of the code. The Select Committee supports that approach. So far—this comes back to my earlier point about the code being unknown—the ombudsman has received only 113 complaints. He has investigated and reported on 23, and 18 further complaints are under investigation. The ombudsman's reports on his investigations demonstrate how effective he has been in ensuring that Departments and agencies disclose information that has previously been withheld for no good reason.
The House will be pleased to know that all Departments have so far complied with the ombudsman's recommendations. One of the benefits that come from the ombudsman system is the fact that it is free to the complainant. That, added to the flexibility of his approach and to the high regard that his office enjoys from Departments and agencies, is a powerful benefit to the citizen.
It may be appropriate for me now to refer to the outstanding qualities of the current holder of the office, Sir William Reid. Sadly, Sir William is due to retire at the end of this year. I am, however, certain that I speak for all Members of the House in expressing appreciation and admiration for the work that he has done since his appointment in 1990. His tenure has witnessed a significant increase in the number of complaints received by his office and a formidable extension to his jurisdiction. Open government is merely one of those extensions. Sir William has established an entirely justifiable reputation for the quality of his investigations. I know that the House will join me in wishing him a long and happy retirement.
There are two unresolved issues arising from the Select Committee's report on the ombudsman. One is the extent of his jurisdiction. Early in this Parliament, in the Committee's report on the powers, work and jurisdiction of the ombudsman, the Select Committee recommended that all Government bodies came within his remit, unless they were explicitly excluded in a schedule to the Act. At present, a body comes within the ombudsman's jurisdiction only if it is explicitly

included. The Cabinet Office, the Atomic Energy Authority, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the Civil Aviation Authority, the National Curriculum Council, the Broadcasting Standards Council and the training and enterprise councils currently remain outside the ombudsman's remit, so he cannot investigate them. That is surely wrong. I believe that the Government should act speedily to bring those bodies within the ombudsman's jurisdiction. Such a move is long overdue.
Secondly, the Committee recommended that the Government grant the ombudsman access to Cabinet and Cabinet Committee papers. At present, he is denied access to such documents under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967. I believe that a serious anomaly exists in that area. The code includes Cabinet papers in the lists of information whose disclosure might harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion. Judgment, however, is subject to the possibility that any harm might be outweighed by public interest if the information were made available. Therefore, a right to information in the public interest exists, but the ombudsman is denied the access that he needs in order to judge whether the refusal to disclose is justified.
The Committee recommended that the ombudsman have access to such papers, but I assure the House that that does not necessarily mean that the information would have to be disclosed: Ministers would retain the power to prevent the ombudsman from disclosing any information that was considered prejudicial to the safety of the state. I would welcome my right hon. Friend's comments on the matter: an anomaly exists and it must be resolved.
The Select Committee recommended a freedom of information Act, which we believe would open government to more public scrutiny. We do not claim that the existing code is ineffective: clearly, half an information loaf is better than no information. The code is helpful but, in our view, it does not go far enough to satisfy a growing appetite for openness. In evidence from Australia and New Zealand, the Committee heard about the effects of open government from those who have seen at first hand FOI regimes at work for more than a decade. The overwhelming consensus was that open government had been of considerable benefit to public life. It is fair to say that the FOI principle is now an accepted part of the political fabric in those countries.
The Australian Law Reform Commission and the Administrative Review Council recently published a review of the federal Freedom of Information Act. It concluded:
That the Act has had a marked impact on the way agencies make decisions and the way they record information".
The consensus in Australia and New Zealand was that the right of access to personal files had resulted in far greater objectivity when recording information—I made that point earlier. According to the Australian and New Zealand experience, requests by individuals for personal information constituted the greatest single use of FOI legislation. Therefore, FOI had resulted in a greater release of information. I am pleased to reassure the House that the dire forecasts about the effect of FOI on the candour of advice have not been borne out by events.
I congratulate the Government on introducing both the code and the citizens charter, which represent substantial steps forward in open government. They materially benefit the citizens of the United Kingdom. However, the Select Committee and I ask the Government to go one step further and introduce a freedom of information Act. By doing so, the Government have nothing to fear and much to gain.
Before I sit down, I seek the indulgence of the House. I serve on the Standing Committee that is considering the Education Bill. With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, and by leave of the House, I shall shortly leave the Chamber in order to return to my place on that Committee.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. F'awsey) does not need the Chair's permission, but I much appreciate his courtesy in informing the House.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: This is a short but important debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on introducing it. He made some important and sensible comments—which is not a common occurrence in the Chamber. I believe that we should demand a freedom of information Act from any Government of any complexion. However, today I shall address the reasons why I believe that the House of Commons needs such an Act more urgently than any individual who desires access to official files.
Sadly, Members of Parliament now have real difficulty in obtaining access to accurate information from Government. I shall explain why that is so. Increasingly, answers to parliamentary questions—irrespective of the code of conduct—if they do not seek to mislead, certainly seek to make it difficult to understand fully the information necessary to examine the workings of government. Such information is so fundamental and vital in a democracy that it cannot be treated as a mere matter of procedure. We are told that there are two kinds of knowledge: either we understand the subject or we know where to obtain information about it.
Ministers and the proceedings of the House of Commons are highest on our list when we require access to information. Therefore, I am sorry to say that in the past 30 years, I have seen a marked deterioration in the desire of Government Departments to hand out information. It has now reached the point where they take—if I dare say it—a two-finger approach to the House of Commons. I have a specific reason for that assertion.
I have read the code carefully and it states plainly that, when information is requested, it should be supplied unless the exemptions that the hon. Gentleman mentioned come into play because of security or other problems. So why must Members of Parliament ask 30 questions before they obtain information—in this case from the Department of Transport—that flights carrying British citizens are operating illegally? That was clear from the answer provided to my first question, yet I was forced to put 30 questions to the relevant Department—which cost the taxpayer a considerable sum—before I obtained a precise statement.
Why do I increasingly receive answers that are so obscure as to be laughable if they were not so embarrassing? I recently obtained answers that said things such as, "It is too soon to know when we shall take that decision." That is fine, but when will we know when that decision will be taken? I recently tabled a series of questions about the channel tunnel fire, the committee meetings and the decision to open the tunnel to various forms of transport. Some of my questions were answered, inasmuch as I was told that I could not have access to the information I sought, but that a summary of the general reports would be available to me in the Library of the House of Commons—presumably if I lived long enough.
I asked the Secretary of State five specific questions on fire-related incidents, all of which in some way affected my constituents. They were answered in the following manner.
This"—
presumably the information—
is precluded under the terms of the channel fixed-link concession agreement".
There are reams of it. In effect, the answers say that the Government can supply the information only to the people concerned, because it is confidential and it
shall not save as required by law"—[Official Report, 6 December 1996; Vol. 286. c. 804.]
be supplied to the House of Commons.
Is not the Minister required by law to give information to Members of Parliament? Do we not have privileges in this Chamber? Do we not have the right to question him, precisely because we are concerned about safety? I think that we do, and people should look closely at what Ministers say.
I have had other startling—I was going to say mind-boggling—answers from Government Departments. I asked the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to his answer of 31 October at column 238 of the Official Report, what was the total number of hours that had been worked by consultants on privatisation. The Minister replied:
The answer could he provided only at disproportionate cost."—[Official Report, 29 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 420.]
Only two firms were involved and the total expenditure had already been made public.
In another reply, the Minister said that it was not the Government's policy to divulge the hourly fees for their advisers. When I asked further questions, I was told that the employment of individuals was a matter for their employers. In other words, because Government money was being spent by a Government appointee on a Government procedure—it was being given to a private firm—the House of Commons was not to be told how much it was costing and what was the total effect on the taxpayer.
Had I more time, I could continue with example after example, but I finish with one that I find endearing and very entertaining. I asked the Department of Transport a series of questions about Civil Aviation Authority investigations to ensure that international standards are being met. The question was pursuant to an earlier reply and, again, I gave the Department the date and the column number. I received the answer:
It is not clear to which of the answers of 26 November the hon. Member is referring."—[Official Report, 29 November 1996; Vol. 286, c. 418.]
Has the Department of Transport not heard of the telephone? Does it not understand that when there are two questions in a column, both from the same


hon. Member—one question on one subject and the second on a subject to which the pursuant question relates—it probably means that she is talking about the subject mentioned in her second question?
The reality is that, whether we like it or not, Departments are going in for obfuscation on a grand scale. They use the creation of stand-off agencies to try to hide information and use as an excuse, "This is commercially confidential," and so on. Even when we know that the information is vital, it is not forthcoming. I know, for example, that the Department of Transport is vacating an office building in Manchester and handing over £800,000 of taxpayers' money to its landlord for the only reason that it wants to reject the lease and move to Manchester. I need to know about that, because it affects the costing of a move that relates to a district traffic office. Yet I am not allowed to have that information in the House of Commons. I have to use my own sources. No one is prepared to make that information public. We are perilously close to trying to hide information. It happens time and again.
The Chamber should be full for this debate, because when the House of Commons cannot get information about Departments, about the effect of European legislation, about the implications of changes through agencies, our constituents suffer. Nobody else suffers. Our constituents suffer individually because of decisions that are taken for no apparent reason, and no one bothers to explain why. They suffer collectively because of decisions taken by the present Government, which are never explained and never laid out in any detail, but simply carried through, as they have been during the past 17 years, with scant regard for the interests of the House of Commons.
Above all, when such behaviour becomes the norm, when not just civil servants but their masters give the impression that the House of Commons is a Chamber to be derided or circumvented, so that it does not need access to accurate and important information, every one of us is in great danger. When Governments are able to do what they like with individual lives, with no regard for individual interests, democracy will cease to work. The House of Commons—probably for the first time since Simon de Montfort called together his baronial friends—is seeking accurate information. Let the Minister answer that if he can.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). I echo her congratulations to the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), on his conversion to freedom of information.
I am, de minimis, grateful to the Government for introducing a code, as for many years we came to a block on that. I add my fervent congratulations on the work of Sir William Reid, who has been a good toiler in those fields and extended the public's perception of that to which they are entitled. I also commend Mr. Maurice Frankel of the Campaign for Freedom of Information. Some hon. Members will have received a detailed briefing, which was covered by my hon. Friend the

Chairman of the Select Committee. I look forward to my right hon. Friend the Minister responding to a number of questions.
Some of us have gone across this course for many years, and the basic question is, "Why freedom of information?" Our system of government is one of democratic and accountable government. If we think about our language, literature, the resonance of freedom and liberty, we use the words of Pope, in his "Essay on Man":
What can we reason, but from what we know".
Over the years, I have watched the argument ebb and flow, but the central feature of British Government, the Executive and its bureaucracy—Whitehall—is that they must hold upon and unto themselves all the rights about releasing information that affects the public policy of our nation. We cannot be democratic, nor can we hold Governments to account unless we know what they are doing. The right is that of the people. This system of government is constructed to serve the interests of the people.
What are the arguments against providing information to the generality of us as citizens? Is it to protect the interests of the Executive? Executives are formed from this democratic Chamber; they are an extension, in a sense, of that representative function. I emphasise as strongly as I can that there is no democracy. I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich. There is no true democracy—perhaps I should qualify it in that way—if Government rigorously maintain unto themselves the right to release information as and if they please. That is really what the struggle has been about all through the years. However, that is the prerogative not of Government, although that is what we are held by to this day, but of the people and of the House.
We all, including the Cabinet Minister, have an interest in ensuring that we are informed. I know that, from the high battlements of Government, it is sometimes convenient to be able to withhold information. Over the years, I have reflected that one day—this now seems more imminent—we shall be in opposition, and the information that we shall struggle to obtain will be vital to the development of public policy.
That is the first constitutional principle. It is a right of the people. It is a right because of who we are, because of our spirit and our feeling. It is also the essence of accountable government, and I affirm that public policy decisions are likely to be the better for a full and open debate.
I am concerned. A series of events has touched on the role of the House and its ability to hold Governments to account. Whatever the House feels about the Scott report—it made its judgment on the inquiry—that report revealed a great deal of information about the working of Whitehall. I have never heard the Government dispute the detail in the report. As I understand it, the Government, and therefore the House, decided that Sir Richard Scott's conclusions were inappropriate and wrong. We have the evidence of senior civil servants—the Cabinet Secretary no less—that giving half the picture is an appropriate way of keeping us informed. That has become the culture, and was the title of a play and an important book on the subject. Half the picture is not good enough.
We have had the code, and we have a series of initiatives. Lord Callaghan's Administration had the Croham directive. I was bemused by the fact that when


one asked former Labour Ministers how they implemented the Croham directive and what it meant to their Departments, they would deny all knowledge of it. It was a breath on the wind and it blew away, but it served its purpose to give Government a busyness and an impetus.
I am also mindful of the fact that the curse of commercial confidentiality diminishes our ability to obtain information. It is blown out of all proportion. I shall use the example of the sale of Ministry of Defence housing, which is another controversial matter. I understand that members of the Select Committee on Defence were given information that was not available to other Members of the House, although we are all duly elected on an equal franchise. However, the information was available to Members if they had commercial associations with commercial companies that wished to make a bid. That is wildly inappropriate.
What was commercial confidentiality in that instance? I have still not fathomed it out, although I have had enlightening correspondence from the Prime Minister. The essence of the sale was an auction: we invited competitive tenders. The United States Government conduct auctions, which they consider to be public matters. What is for sale and the conditions attached to it are a matter of public knowledge. How else can people be assured that a sale has been carried out openly and above board, and that the best possible price has been achieved?
I cited those examples because they are of some importance in determining the nature of public policy, although I have not gone into detail, as I intended. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster perhaps knows, I am a parliamentary chairman of the Campaign for Freedom of Information. It is not that I do not wish the Government well—I have seen the changes that Conservative Governments have introduced. That which was impossible yesterday, has become possible today.
I remember the reforms that were made to bring the security services into the open. In the debates of 1988, I listened to Ministers say that the entire state of the United Kingdom was in danger of falling. I heard Back Benchers argue that it was outrageous even for Ministers to know what the security services were doing. Yet, the very Minister who advanced those propositions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd), the then Home Secretary, overcame those arguments and found a way forward. However inadequate I may think those measures were, there was a revolution in thinking.
Where is the block on openness? I do not see my political friends, such as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, as enemies of open government. I appreciate the argument about the cautious, judicious process of government, but I see an opening up, so why is there a constant block? When one reads Sir William Reid's reports, one feels that there is a bureaucratic block, and that Whitehall itself fears open government more than anything. I did not understand why that should be so, until I read the Scott report. I then saw that our public policy is often determined by unelected civil servants, even without the remit of their Ministers. That is very serious.
It is perhaps inappropriate to repeat on the Floor of the House what the Deputy Prime Minister said outside the House, but he stated that he would like a freedom of

information Act because it would help him to manage his Departments. That is one of the great difficulties. The huge range of British Government is such that it is difficult to know what is happening in all the limbs and outer parts.
I urge my right hon. Friend, and through him the Government, to grasp the opportunity to assert what the House and the country has stood for—our worthwhile tradition of liberty and holding Governments to account. In order to do that, ours is the right to have all the information that we wish, as of right.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The theme that has emerged from the previous two speeches is that the present parliamentary process gives insufficient opportunity for people to make a proper contribution—not least through their elected parliamentary representatives—to policy making, the preparation of legislation and, perhaps most important, the scrutiny of Government policies and actions. I agree with that view. All too often, people are kept in the dark. Parliament fails to provide protection against government from behind closed doors.
The code of practice on access to Government information was a welcome—although regrettably small—step to the opening up of government. In theory, the code limits the grounds for withholding information and provides, for the first time, a mechanism for independent review of refusals to give information by officials and Ministers. It is said that Departments are now committed to releasing the internal guidance that they use in their dealings with the public. Even exempted information may, in theory, be disclosed if there is an overriding public interest in doing so.
We should not allow ourselves to be deluded into thinking that that is sufficient. There are serious problems not only in the way in which the code is working in practice, but in its scope, which is far too narrow to be genuinely effective. The Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration recognised a number of failings and omissions, and made some useful recommendations, many of which the Government have accepted. However, they have notably rejected some of the most important recommendations.
I urge the Government to reconsider. The first problem is that public awareness of the code is still too low. Rights that people do not know they have are of limited value. The Government's recent, small-scale advertising has not raised the code's profile. The Government have decided that it is a matter for individual Departments to promote the code, but I believe that central Government must play a key role.
The code currently promises access to information only, and not to documents. That is another significant drawback that allows selective editing to take place. The public have little reason to have confidence in such a scheme. The Minister acknowledged the problems that that causes. Does he believe that the Government should amend the code so that copies of original documents must be provided when requested?
Much information is exempt from the code. Any rational parliamentarian would accept that there are grounds for some exemptions, but other omissions seem draconian. A blanket ban on information relating to


immigration, for example, seems only to reinforce the view that there is something to hide. The Government have argued that the exemptions are justified because they cause extra costs or work loads to be imposed on the relevant Department. In a democracy, such an argument is not and never can be a valid excuse for withholding information; such information is one of the costs of democracy.
There is another exemption on disclosure of information held for health and safety purposes, including food safety. Even if the disclosed information were to reveal substantial danger to the public health or safety, the code currently does not help the public obtain such information. After the recent E. coli deaths in Scotland, and the continuing public concern over bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, its human equivalent, does the Minister not agree that the public have a right to know about possible dangers in the food that they eat?
Many public bodies are exempt completely from the code. It seems ironic that a scheme to encourage open government does not include in its jurisdiction the police, nationalised industries, the Atomic Energy Authority, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the Civil Aviation Authority, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Broadcasting Standards Council, training and enterprise councils—the list goes on and on. Even when the ombudsman can investigate, the Government have retained the power to reject any recommendations made.
An obvious, natural and right remedy to the situation is to pass a freedom of information Act. That was, rightly, the conclusion of the Select Committee, not least because it would simplify and unify the hotchpotch of rights to information. Such an Act would cover the entire public sector, provide access to documents—not only edited highlights—and provide everyone with an accessible and enforceable right to information.
The Government have chosen, again, to reject that recommendation, and I do not believe that their reasons for doing so stand up to scrutiny now any more than they did in the past. It has been claimed that, as an administrative document, the code is more flexible and can be amended more easily in the light of experience. The code can be amended more easily—but not necessarily to achieve greater openness.
The lack of a proper Bill has allowed serious anomalies in the permitted exemptions, such as those for immigration and food safety. It has also led to disparate charging regimes, and to Government-filtered information rather than to the provision of full documentation. The lack of a statutory basis means that current statutory secrecy clauses cannot be overridden, and that the Government can prevent the ombudsman from conducting an investigation, because his jurisdiction has simply not been re-examined by the House.
The Government claim that the code has entirely avoided long and expensive disputes in appeals. That is untrue, because, in some cases, the appeals procedure has taken many months. The main reason why there have not been delays is that, as I said, most people are not aware of the procedure or how to make use of it. Therefore, the ombudsman has not been overburdened, as was, and should be, expected if people are encouraged and able to make effective use of the system.
Liberal Democrats have long called for a freedom of information Act, to end the Government's often obsessive secrecy. We believe that such an Act would enable people to know much more about the conduct of government, and thereby hold Government to account. The Act should confer a general right of access, except in a small number of narrowly defined areas in which it is overwhelmingly in the public interest to ensure that confidentiality is maintained. I shall not list those matters, but I believe they could be determined fairly easily by general agreement.
Complaints about refusal of access to information or unreasonable delay could then be referred to an independent commissioner, who has powers to carry out investigations and to take action to ensure that information is forthcoming. An independent tribunal could be established to hear appeals against decisions, to which both the information holder and the information seeker would be entitled to appeal.
As the Liberal Democrat spokesman on the environment, I have a special interest in ensuring that environmental information is not withheld from the public. The Government have previously stated their agreement, at least in principle, on that point. The European Union directive on freedom of access to information about the environment has been implemented by the environmental information regulations. However, a major deficiency of the regulations is that they lack a specific enforcement mechanism.
More than three years ago, in July 1993, in their Command Paper, "Open Government", the Government promised to introduce a statutory right of access to health and safety information, modelled on the environmental information regulations. They suggested then that the new right could be enforced by a tribunal, and that any such tribunal could also deal with complaints under the environmental information regulations. Although there have been four Queen's Speeches—at least two of which were regarded as "light" in terms of legislative work load—since the publication of that White Paper, there has been no sign of movement to implement the proposal.
The matter was examined, yet again, during the passage of the Environment Act 1995. I introduced an amendment to the Bill that would have allowed for the creation of a specialist tribunal that could hear disputes on the provision of access to environmental information. In responding and arguing against that amendment, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford), speaking on behalf of the Government, clearly said that he anticipated that there soon would be such a tribunal, and that the work was "well in hand". Since his insistence, that matters were "well in hand", was more than a year ago, perhaps Ministers will tell us today whether we are any closer to setting up that environmental information tribunal.
Apparently we are no closer, because, this afternoon, I received a written answer from the responsible Minister stating:
I have no immediate plans to introduce legislation to establish an environmental information appeals tribunal. The recently published first report of the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Communities on Freedom of Access to Information on the Environment recommends different procedures, which are being carefully considered.


Perhaps I should remind the Chancellor of the Duchy of his own answer, in January 1996, when he appeared before the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and was questioned about the delay. He replied:
A commitment was given, a promise was made, we have not delivered it so far and I want those promises honoured.
It appears that the Government are happy to suggest that they will do something and to give assurances that they will do something, but they are far less happy actually to do anything. In the meantime, the public are denied access to a proper enforcement mechanism under the environmental information regulations and to health and safety information.
As the Government have said that the proposed right to health and safety information will not apply retrospectively, information that is currently being gathered will not be accessible even when—or if—the new legislation is enacted; the longer the delay, therefore, the greater the amount of information that will be permanently withheld from the public.
I shall give an example, from the south-west, of why the issue is important to my constituents. Solicitors Toiler Beattie have asked for information and correspondence received by the Department of the Environment from South West Water on the delay to four bathing water schemes in the south-west—which are vital for my constituents—and the process under which the list of sensitive areas was reduced, whereas South West Water's list of less sensitive areas was increased. The Department of the Environment made a formal refusal, on the ground that much of the information that they were seeking related to "confidential deliberations" of the group that worked out the proposals for the sensitive and less sensitive areas under the urban waste water treatment directive. Subsequent correspondence, however, showed that the information withheld had not even been considered by that group.
In a democracy, surely the public have a right to know on what basis an area of bathing water has been declared sensitive. In a democracy, surely a water company—which may or may not be polluting that water—should not have the right to withhold such information from the general public, whom it serves. Will the Minister, therefore, give a firm commitment and a fixed timetable for establishing an environmental information tribunal? As the Government have already shown their sympathy for the creation of such a body, and the concept has broad support, surely there is no reason to procrastinate further.
As I said, the code of practice on access to Government information is a welcome step in the right direction, but it has not gone far enough, and it is not broad enough. The Government—or perhaps their civil servants, who advise them—do not appear to trust the public. By denying the House an opportunity to debate a proper freedom of information Bill, they seem not to trust the democratically elected representatives of the public either.
We must begin to increase the level of trust between the Government and the citizens of the United Kingdom. A democracy works best when its citizens are informed and can demand the highest quality of service—service which they are entitled to expect. Without such information, it is not truly a democracy. I believe that we still have a long way to go to achieve that.

Mr. Christopher Gill: There seems to be a perception in the House that many of our problems could be resolved by making more information available and that the country would be better governed as a result. It is ironic that those who advance that case seem to ignore what is happening to us in the European Union. In my submission, the problems identified in the debate stem as much from our membership of the European Union as from our domestic arrangements, as some hon. Members perceive them.
It is unacceptable that the Council of Ministers will meet in secret. We shall not know what was discussed. No minutes or Hansard will be available of what is said there. We shall not even know how our Ministers have voted. We have to rely on inspired leaks to the press or perhaps a Minister volunteering the information. We have even less access to European information than we have to information through Parliament.
I accept that, when we put questions to Ministers, as we all do frequently, we are not obliged to elicit the truth. I suspect that a game is played on many occasions, when Departments have a vested interest in not declaring the truth. Nevertheless, the Back Bencher has the opportunity to go back again and again on the same subject to tease out what is going on in the Department or in the Minister's mind. That is vastly better than the situation in Europe—we do not know what goes on the Council of Ministers and we have no means of finding out.
I am inclined to go further and say that, considering the past 25 years and our membership of the European Union, we might not have reached the position in which we find ourselves if the British people had been told the truth from the beginning. Had the British people been told the truth 25 years ago, I believe that they would have voted differently in the 1975 referendum. They were not told the truth because the politicians of the day—they must take the blame for this—recognised that, had the truth been told, the people would not have endorsed what was in prospect.
Back Benchers, who represent their constituents on many issues—particularly agriculture, in my case—are now in the appalling situation of being unable to discern what is going on and what discussions and decisions have taken place on the issues about which we are vitally concerned. We have scarcely any real opportunity to find out what was in the minds of Ministers when they were engaged in discussions with their opposite numbers in Europe. We have no means of knowing what was said or how they voted.
I believe that Sweden has had freedom of information legislation for a long time. After being members of the Community for only a very short time, the Swedes are realising that it is not what they thought they were letting themselves into. They did not realise that joining the European Union would leave them unable to discern what was going on. We are not party to the important decisions that involve us as Members of Parliament and the people whom we represent because there is no open debate in the Council of Ministers.
I know that others wish to speak in the debate, so I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion by saying that, although I recognise that many right hon. and hon. Members feel that there are deficiencies in our system in the Westminster Parliament and I sympathise with their


views in many respects, a greater threat to democracy overhangs the issue—the threat from a form of government by unelected and unaccountable people whom we have no means of controlling. When the decisions predicated by the European civil servants and the European Commission are brought to the Council of Ministers, they are rubber-stamped without any democratic check or balance by the representatives of the people—ourselves, the Members of Parliament.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: I congratulate Sir William Reid on his retirement. I have worked with him since he became the ombudsman. He has been one of the best ombudsmen and has highlighted the office more than anybody else. I have seen him on television news programmes on several occasions, pushing the argument for greater freedom of information. Wherever he goes, I hope that he continues to do that.
The code came into being about two years ago. The Select Committee went to Australia, where we took a lot of evidence and worked very hard. It was not a gravy train, as some people portray those trips; it was a hard slog and we had to take a lot of evidence from Australia and New Zealand. It was interesting to see the contrasts between their freedom of information legislation and the situation here. Since then, their legislation has been updated to make it even better and friendlier. We discovered some aspects that were not quite right.
In this country, we have just had a freedom of information system introduced—we did not have it when we were in Australia. We are the leading lights of democracy and we have not even got freedom of information legislation; we have a code. It is a beginning and has worked to a certain extent, but there are a lot of loopholes and the code leaves a lot to be desired. The Select Committee was right to say that there should have been legislation. The Labour side voted for that and it was decided by one vote. I hope that the Government take that on board. In fact, I am not bothered whether they take it on board now, because the new Government—my party's Government—might do so. We shall hear later what my Government will do when they get power.
There are advantages and drawbacks. We have heard the advantages. I do not want to take too long, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), who used to be a member of the Select Committee, wants to speak, but there is no harm in mentioning the drawbacks again.
Public awareness of the code is limited. It receives little publicity. Many people are not aware that it is there for them. They do not know where to go. In fact, they do not even know how to contact the ombudsman. We have had that problem before with the health service. Health trusts tell everyone how to complain to the trust, but they do not tell anyone how to complain to the ombudsman if they are not satisfied with the result. It is the same with the code. People who are refused information are not told that they can complain about that to the ombudsman.
Of course, complaints take a long time to investigate. I want to speak briefly later about delays by Departments. Access is given to information but not to documents. A person has to be precise when asking for information. Why

do we not give people the documents? Why do we narrow it down and say, "You must tell us what you want and we'll give it to you"? Why not just give people all the relevant documents? That is how it should be done. It is done like that in New Zealand and Australia.
As the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) said, the Government are free to ignore the ombudsman's recommendations. I always thought that the ombudsman had the greatest of power. I thought that he had the power of a High Court judge, but the Government can take no notice of his recommendations. That is beyond belief in a democracy. That is why we have an ombudsman.
In some cases, people requesting information from Government Departments are getting four or more reasons why they should not have it. They are told that providing information makes extra work. Of course it does. Democracy is costly and may involve extra work, but that is not a blanket excuse or even a reason for refusing information. I hope that the Minister will address that point in his reply.
The experience of the past two years makes it clear that the code of practice should be reviewed. The general election is approaching and I am sure that the incoming Labour Government will examine the code of practice, amend it and introduce the relevant legislation. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) will confirm that undertaking. The code is not working and we know what we have to do to put it right.
There have been many complaints about Government Departments and it is interesting to find out just how sloppy they are. For example, the Department of Trade and Industry delayed for eight and a half months before failing to supply some information that had been requested. The DTI simply did not want to release it.
The Health and Safety Executive took 13 months to supply information on handling nuclear fuel. I thought that the Health and Safety Executive was a public body, but of course it has been exempted, so information is not available.
The Department of the Environment was asked for information about Touche Ross. After 17 months, the problem still had not been resolved and the information remained unavailable. Somebody was certainly trying to hide something. Obviously, there are some dodgy characters working for Touche Ross.
Many straightforward requests are denied. The Department for Education and Employment took 34 days to deal with one request and provide one page of foolscap.

Mr. Gill: Is the hon. Gentleman entirely persuaded that the new legislation would have prevented those delays? What confidence does he have that an Act of Parliament will end all that prevarication?

Mr. Campbell: An Act of Parliament would cover all those organisations. At present, they are under no legal obligation to supply information. If a complaint is made to the ombudsman, the Minister can ignore it. Legislation would prevent long delays. A statutory right to information would put an end to all the time wasting and people would not have to wait 17 months. The ombudsman would enforce that statutory right.
At present, we have only a code. A code is simply decided, whereas the House considers legislation and can amend it. That is democracy. Legislation would get rid of all the claptrap of people being denied information month after month and year after year.
The Treasury took 41 days to supply information. The Inland Revenue also took 40 days to provide information. All those days were lost in delays in providing simple information. It seems to me that the Government and civil servants are afraid to release information. When the Select Committee went to Australia, we discovered that civil servants there were anxious about releasing information. They were worried that it might upset Ministers. The matter comes down to the fact that Ministers and civil servants are hiding information and destroying democracy.
Finally, I should mention the national health service code which has operated for about a year. It is not working. Once again, the code has not been publicised. Trust after trust is refusing to supply information and most people are unaware that they are entitled to information about their hospital records. Although the code was a good idea, the public have no idea that it exists. I hope that the next Labour Government review the matter and introduce legislation on the freedom of information. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland will confirm that.

Dr. Tony Wright: This is a short debate, and I shall be extremely brief as I have only one point to make. I sat on two Select Committees that produced reports on the matter—the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and, more recently, the Select Committee on Public Service. No doubt the Minister will tell us that those Committees had different views.
The Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration spent a prolonged time examining nothing but the issue we are considering today. We travelled to Australia and New Zealand. Never was a trip more justified and never did more people see the light in more enjoyable surroundings. One could see conversions taking place as we travelled around that glorious land and returned to discuss what we had discovered.
The Select Committee produced what will be seen as a landmark report in the history of an issue that has been debated for so long. It represents a devastating critique of existing arrangements and a devastating argument for moving in a different direction.
The Public Service Committee—an admirable Select Committee on which I now sit—was driven by the party divide after Scott and was unable to take the same bipartisan and dispassionate approach. The party hatches came down and we all did what we had to do. The first was an example of a Select Committee at its best; the second was an example of a Select Committee reverting to type.
There is one issue to confront and the House can no longer avoid it. We have to decide whether information—the lubricant of democracy—should be considered to be a grant from Government or a right of citizenship. If the House believes that it should continue to be a grant from Government, it will be happy to continue with codes that the House has never discussed, scrutinised or approved. If, however, it believes that information is a right of citizenship, it will demand legislation to enshrine that right. The House would then be able to scrutinise the issue and examine the advantages and disadvantages of the code. The House would own the legislation.
We are moving away from a system of cosy self-regulation and club government, when majorities decide how much the rest of us should know, towards an era when people claim rights as citizens and expect the House to protect those rights.
We are on the eve of what will probably be seen as the most ambitious period of political reform for more than a century. It seems quite extraordinary that the Government appear not to understand the mood and are entering a general election campaign defending the voting rights of hereditary peers while denying people freedom of information legislation. Never have a Government so misunderstood the democratic current now running through this country. We are on the eve of a great reforming Administration, and I expect my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) to tell us that freedom of information legislation will be a prominent part of our first year in office.

Mr. Derek Foster: The thrust of this debate has been almost inevitably towards freedom of information legislation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) for his eloquent plea. His speech was preceded by the equally eloquent plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell). I was also struck by the powerful plea made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). She issued a warning both to the present Government and to future Governments. She said that, in her experience, despite the White Paper, the code and the strength of Select Committees, Governments are now more reluctant to release information than when she first became a Member.
One of the debate's most moving speeches was made by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), for whom I have always had enormous respect. I hope that my saying so does not do him further damage among Conservative Members. He is a passionate advocate not only of freedom of information but of everything that touches civil liberties in the House. Often when I hear him speak, I think to myself, "This is the House of Commons at its best"—a fiercely independent Member making a plea for the rights and powers not only of the House but of individual citizens. I consider it a privilege to take part in the same debate as him.
I very much admired the way in which the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), advanced his arguments. I congratulate the Committee on its excellent report, especially on concluding that freedom of information legislation is the best way of proceeding. I want to convey my most heartfelt thanks to its members for the enormous sacrifices that they have all undergone on our behalf in going to far-flung places to examine important issues. Such sacrifices were worth while, given that the Chairman returned a convert to freedom of information. The House owes a great debt of gratitude to the Committee, which, under the hon. Gentleman's able chairmanship, initiated today's debate. There are all too few debates of this nature. Perhaps, there are all too few debates on Select Committee reports.
I associate myself with the remarks made about Sir William Reid and offer my thanks for his outstanding contribution. He has proved to be a redoubtable battler.


He courageously accomplished an important task in taking the mandarins as well as members of the Cabinet in such a direction.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said about the need for open government:
When you start saying, 'Well, we must only reveal the minimum amount of information possible to the public', and the presumption is that the public and Parliament do not have the right to know, you lead towards totalitarianism and political dictatorship, and I think that is fundamentally different from my conception of parliamentary democracy.
He was absolutely right. The White Paper on open government said:
At the heart of the Government's philosophy is a belief in the need to return to individual citizens the power and means to make their own choices and to determine their own priorities. The Government has insisted that public institutions exist to serve the individual, not the other way about.
That is quite so. It will be Labour's intention to unlock the British people's potential to renew their communities, public services and nations, by trusting them and creating partnerships with them in the way in which the White Paper suggested.
In oral evidence to the Select Committee on 17 January, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said:
The two major advantages"—
of open government—
are, first of all that in a parliamentary democracy it is extremely important that all those who take an interest … should know the facts behind a particular government decision, the reasoning behind administrative action, so that there can be an informed debate, so that those affected can understand what actually will affect them and why — Secondly, it is very important in government there should be a culture, a spirit of openness, for that makes better decision making among civil servants and ministers, because civil servants have to take minor decisions on behalf of ministers in many different circumstances. It is very important that the approach should be the public need to be informed about this particular process or decision, that should be the assumption of civil servants, and I think it makes for better decision making".
The irony is that the Chancellor made that statement when the Scott report was in the course of completion. Scott revealed, however, that a culture of secrecy permeates almost every aspect of the Government's activity. Information was treated as a precious resource, to be given out only when absolutely necessary and, even then, not in full. If guidelines were changed, it was considered that there was no need to tell Parliament. Instead, inaccurate and evasive replies were used as a series of excuses for keeping Parliament and the public in the dark about what was going on.
The Scott report made the case for a freedom of information Act unanswerable, not only because of how it might have been applied in the specific case with which the report dealt, but due to the sea change that it would bring about in attitudes towards the release of information. Ministers have said that a freedom of information Act would not have helped in the arms-to-Iraq affair; that the information would have been covered by the exemptions that any sensible freedom of information Bill would have to include.
Much of what was being asked did not relate to national security or even commercial confidentiality, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich so ably

exposed. Information was withheld, because that is the culture in which the Government operate, and Ministers wanted to avoid embarrassment and accountability. Despite his fine words about open government, the Chancellor of the Duchy was put up in the Scott debate to defend the indefensible in one of the most ruthless and cynical exercises of self-preservation undertaken by any Government in modern political times.
The Scott report underlined the case for a freedom of information Act. Scott stated:
Without the provision of full information it is not possible for Parliament, or for that matter the public, to hold the executive fully to account … If Ministers are to be excused blame and personal criticism on the basis of the absence of personal knowledge or involvement, the corollary ought to be an acceptance of the obligation to be forthcoming with information about the incident in question.
We heard a clear statement from the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Both his party and mine have long been favour of introducing a freedom of information Act to stop unnecessary secretiveness in government. The control of information is one of the greatest powers available to the Government and that power will grow as the information society develops. A Government's attitude to sharing information with the people says much about how they view power and the relationship between themselves and the people who elect them.
The Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, in the report under discussion today, recommended in paragraph 126 that the Government should introduce a freedom of information Act. It asserts that a statute would bring about a far greater change in the culture of Government than merely publicising rights. The report states:
A more powerful reason (than publicity for rights) given for statute by those we met when we visited Australia and New Zealand was the need to change governmental culture from one of secrecy to one where openness is accepted and there is a willingness to allow the public to participate in the process of government … The Committee noted that New Zealand had a directive in place prior to the Act but this was, however, later deemed to be ineffective.
It concludes:
We are convinced that on balance the advantage lies in favour of legislation. We recommend that the Government introduce a Freedom of Information Act.
That is a seminal and landmark report that will be extraordinarily influential.
Four out of five voters now support freedom of information legislation, yet the Government reject that, instead placing their faith in the operation of the code of practice. The Government believe that
the Code should now have an enhanced role underpinning the answering of Parliamentary Questions and in other matters of accountability. Given this increase in the importance for the provisions of the Code, the Government does not believe it would be sensible to seek a fundamental change in the status of the Code.
I shall not go into further detail, because we have had an important debate in which Back Benchers have participated. I shall bring my remarks to a close by complimenting the Government on the strides in greater openness that they have made. All the great campaigners—I count colleagues in the Chamber among them—know how difficult it has been to persuade Governments of all complexions to go in the direction of freedom of information. Indeed, it is easier for Oppositions than for Governments to be persuaded.
We believe that the code does not go far enough, and I can give my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood the promise that he sought: we will take an early opportunity to legislate for a freedom of information Act. Bills are available and much of the work has been done by others who have preceded us. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) was one of those and we have his Bill. The Cabinet Office has also done much of the work. Its staff have also been to New Zealand and Australia to see how things are done there. All the work has been done and it could be that, in 12 months' time, if the electorate do the sensible thing, freedom of information legislation will be on the statute book. I look forward very much to that. Such legislation will not be a panacea—no Act of Parliament ever is—but it will be a step change in altering the culture in Whitehall. I even predict that some of my hon. Friends—right hon. Friends if they are in the Cabinet—may not be as enthusiastic about such legislation as some of us are. Nevertheless, we will deal with those problems if and when they arise. I am delighted to have taken part in the debate and I look forward to the Chancellor's remarks.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Roger Freeman): I found myself in agreement with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) when she said that this was an important debate and that she regretted the relatively sparse attendance. The hon. Lady was right, because this is probably one of the most fundamental issues that the House, as a legislature, has to face and it is important that it is properly debated.
We know that the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is attending a Standing Committee, but I congratulate him and the Select Committee on producing an excellent and well-reasoned report. I do not agree with all the reasons and in the time available to me I shall seek to give a summary of the arguments against them, but I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) on the even-handed and rational way in which he presented his case.
The remarks by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), which were echoed at shorter length by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), touched on the key issues in this debate. My hon. Friend has been a legislator for almost 18 years and I have been a member of the Executive for 11 years. Both of us represent with our experience the different sides of the argument. The argument for the legislator is the essential, unarguable case for proper, prompt and comprehensive information to be given to the House by the Government. As a member of the Executive, I argue that citizens, and indeed right hon. and hon. Members, possess another right—the right to good government. Both of us bring to the House, I hope, the same genuine desires for proper and open government.
The process is a dynamic one. No one should have a closed mind about what is good, open government. We have seen, in the past 10, 20 and 30 years, significant changes, partly brought about by consistent pressure from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, and the process is evolving. It is also important to consider what is in the best interests of the citizen in terms of good and orderly government. I shall develop that theme in a moment.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) for quoting what I said to the Select Committee. I believe seriously that rational debate relies on full information and that rational debate on that basis leads to rational decision making and not the normal rant that we sometimes get, not only in the House, but unfortunately in Committee.
On the Scott report, I may say that I do not regard the episode over arms to Iraq as typical of the issues that the Government face. In the daily press of events on Government and the experience of Government Departments, it was atypical, although extremely important. I intend, once we have dealt with the remaining issue on public interest immunity certificates, to place a summary in the Library of the House of all the actions that we have taken, which I promised at the Dispatch Box to do during the Scott debate. I hope to be able to do that as soon as the House returns from the recess.
At the centre of our policy towards openness is the code on access to information, not a freedom of information Act. I am pleased that the Select Committee welcomed what we had achieved with the code on access and I shall publish, as soon as the House returns, a new, revised code on access to information and I shall place a copy in the Library. I shall also write to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland. The new code will take into account the various recommendations for improvement that we have received, in particular, from the Select Committee on Public Service. I hope that it will be an improvement and I am sure that it will be because it deals with what I call the harm test. The addition to the code also, if I might quote from the final draft which I have circulated to the Chairman of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration earlier today, states:
The approach to release of information should in all cases be based on the assumption that information should be released".
It is, therefore, presumptive. Later on, it states:
In those categories which refer to harm or prejudice"—
the harm test, which should be used when deciding whether information should not be disclosed—
the presumption remains that information should be disclosed unless the harm likely to arise from disclosure would outweigh the public interest in making the information available.
There are many other amendments and we have tried to ensure that they are in keeping with the report.
What are the arguments against a freedom of information Act? I hear what the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland says about the Opposition's early commitment to a Bill—perhaps not in the first Session of any future Labour Government, but it will receive early consideration. It is not without cost. The right hon. Gentleman will have seen my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary's costing of the Opposition's programme. He will have noticed that, because I am so scrupulous, there is no entry under "freedom of information Act". It is difficult to cost, but there will be a positive cost, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman recognises.
It is important to recognise that such an Act would probably result in no additional disclosure. In every freedom of information Act throughout the world the usual exceptions apply to dealing with intelligence, Cabinet discussions, civil service policy advice, bank rate policy and so on. We must not fool ourselves into thinking that such an Act would mean a raft of additional information.
Although the crucial argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth was that such an Act would change the culture and discipline of the civil service and, indeed, Ministers in disclosing information, I believe that it would damage the candour and even the openness of civil servants.

Mrs. Dunwoody: No.

Mr. Freeman: I will tell the hon. Lady why I think that would happen.

Mrs. Dunwoody: rose—

Mr. Freeman: If the hon. Lady will allow me to finish my argument, I shall be glad to give way.
If we followed the suggestion by the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) and made it a statutory obligation to disclose documents, fear of disclosure would mean that civil service advice would not be written down as comprehensively as it is now and civil servants would not be as free and open in describing the various options.

Mrs. Dunwoody: indicated dissent.

Mr. Freeman: I accept that the hon. Lady has experience of government. However, Labour Members have not had direct experience of government for 17 years. There is a distinction between facts, reasons and background information that should be disclosed fully and promptly and the sort of policy advice where the civil servant says, "Minister, you've got three options—A, B and C. Don't take A, B is too costly and the Treasury won't wear it, so you're stuck with C."
If, under a freedom of information Act with the sort of provisions wanted by the hon. Member for Blyth Valley, there are statutory sanctions to ensure that such a document is available, first, the advice will not be written down, and secondly, it will not be given.

Mrs. Dunwoody: The self-confidence to argue a case openly is something that the civil service will rapidly learn. In the five years of my trade brief, I found that civil servants were perfectly capable of putting their arguments not only with great force but, at that time, with great coherence.
I shall give one example of the sort of problems I now encounter. Information that I required that would safeguard British travellers was not vouchsafed from the Department of Transport—I got it from the Federal Aviation Authority of America. That country has a freedom of information Act and I took the necessary information off the Internet, in the House of Commons, courtesy of the American system.

Mr. Freeman: I agree with a comment the hon. Lady made earlier. She asked, have not the civil service and the Government heard of the telephone? In my experience, where there is ambiguity or doubt in the mind of the civil servant, call the hon. Member concerned. I intend to take steps to ensure that that advice is more widely promulgated. Too often, we exchange information between the Executive and the legislature via

parliamentary questions or correspondence—yet we could find out the reason behind a question, if there is any ambiguity, and provide prompt and fuller information.
I want to place on record what the Government have done to change the culture. It is a slow process, but change is forthcoming. We now publish information memorandums on privatisation opportunities for the private sector. Previously, the civil service would say, "You cannot publish it because it is commercially confidential and there is no justification for it being placed in the Library of the House of Commons." I am pleased to say that we changed that during the past two years.
Today, we published "Public Bodies 1996", which gives information on the remuneration of chief executives of public bodies. There is guidance on answering parliamentary questions, as the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland knows, because he has questioned me about it in the past. We now require that openness guidance to be included in each parliamentary question folder before the civil servant completes advice on answering a question.
I assure the House that when we produce the next monitoring report on the work of the ombudsman and the code of access to information, we will include experience in each of the public Departments. As I said in the Government's response to the Select Committee:
Departments will therefore in future be specifically asked to record examples of Code requests as part of the annual OPS monitoring exercise for inclusion in future annual monitoring reports, identifying (wherever possible) where they have resulted in a change of policy towards disclosure.
That is a significant change and I hope that it will be helpful.
I join in the tributes to Sir William Reid. Not only is he a distinguished public servant at a time of great change for the ombudsman, but he has been extremely kind to many hon. Members and ensured that their constituency problems have been dealt with. I am grateful to him for dealing with the concerns of my constituents that I have passed to him.
The hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Taylor) raised a number of interesting points. I repeat the Government's commitment to introduce a Bill on access to personal records and information held on health and safety matters. I regret that we have not yet had the opportunity to do so. If I continue to hold my present responsibility, I will do all that I can to persuade my colleagues collectively to include such a Bill in the Queen's Speech.
The hon. Members for Blyth Valley and for Truro raised the issue of publicity. So far, there has been a national campaign. It might make sense now to have a regional one, to ensure that more members of the public are aware of their right of access to the ombudsman and, indeed, their right of access under the code of access.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: I referred earlier to the answer that I received today on the environmental information tribunal, which we had understood would be the most likely forum in which access to environmental information would be enforced. The Minister said that he wanted legislation on health and safety. Will he clarify the position on the enforcement of access to information on both health and safety and the environment?

Mr. Freeman: The Government are considering the proposals in the report of the House of Lords Select


Committee on the European Communities on freedom of access to information on the environment, which recommends alternative procedures for resolving disputes under the regulations as soon as the Government have decided the best way to proceed. I must say that I was unaware of that point, but the hon. Gentleman has now ensured that I will take a personal interest in the matter.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) raised important points, including access to information on European regulations. I hope to be publishing, in early January, a guidance to all Departments on how to win friends and influence people in Brussels. We do not actually call the check list that—we refer to how Ministers should become involved at an earlier stage in the origination and preparation of directives and regulations. It is important that we take a close interest at a much earlier stage. That goes not just for Parliament and the Executive, but for business and industry.
My hon. Friend also mentioned transparency. I discussed that issue with Swedish Ministers during my recent visit to Stockholm. They were right to say that the whole process of directives and regulations from Brussels should be much more transparent. One way in which to achieve that is to engage in more consultation.
I join the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood in congratulating the Select Committee. I must say that the hon. Gentleman's speech sounded very much like that of a Member of Parliament who was exiling himself permanently to the Back Benches as a voice of the people. Conservative Members will do all that we can to ensure that his ambitions are fulfilled.
Question deferred, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates).

Orders of the Day — Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 11

FEES FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 6, line 32, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
(".—(1) The appropriate Ministers may by regulations make provision about fees for relevant planning applications.
(2) Regulations under subsection (I) above may, in particular—

(a) make provision for the payment to the authority to which a relevant planning application is made of a fee of a prescribed amount,
(b) make provision for the remission or refunding of a prescribed fee (in whole or part) in prescribed circumstances,
(c) make provision for a prescribed fee to be treated as paid in prescribed circumstances,
(d) make provision about the time for payment of a prescribed fee,
(e) make provision about the consequences of non—payment of a prescribed fee, including provision for the termination of the application concerned or any appeal against its refusal, and
(f) make provision for the resolution of disputes.

(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) above may—

(a) make such supplementary, incidental or consequential provision as the appropriate Ministers think fit, and
(b) make different provision for different cases.")

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.— [Mr. Watts.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 82 to 84 and 86 to 88.

7 pm

Mr. Keith Bradley: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker? I trust that the Minister was moving the motion relating to the first group of amendments.

The Minister for Railways and Roads (Mr. John Watts): indicated assent.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful for that reassuring nod; I feared that we were going to have to discuss the whole lot en bloc—in which event, my speech might have been slightly longer than I had anticipated.
Although we are dealing with a set of amendments relating to planning fees and appeals, I feel that I should first pay tribute to the work that has been done in the other place, particularly by the Select Committee. The detailed scrutiny undertaken there has made our work much easier, as have the clear and concise arguments that have been advanced and answered throughout the Bill's passage so far. As that will enable us to engage in a simpler debate tonight, neither my hon. Friends nor I intend to delay the House unduly.
As we are dealing with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, perhaps I could ask the Minister whether he intends to make any further statement about today's reopening of the tunnel to passengers. Can he give any further information about safety procedures that may have been changed or enhanced as a result of the consideration and discussions that have followed the fire in the tunnel, about the implications of those discussions for the transport of lorries, and about the inquiry that is currently under way?
I am sure the Minister agrees that it is essential for us to put the maximum possible information about any changes in safety conditions or mechanisms into the public domain, in order to restore public confidence in the channel tunnel at the earliest opportunity. Any statement that the Minister is prepared to make would be welcomed by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
May I also ask the Minister a specific question about the amendments? Have any of the proposed procedural changes any public expenditure implications, and, if so, does the Bill cater for them?

Sir John Stanley: Like the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley), I want to link my remarks to the amendments; and, like him, I wish to ask the Minister a question that bears directly on the provisions and proceedings involved in the Bill—and, I believe, on the amendments.
My hon. Friend the Minister will recall that a significant part of the outstanding business from our proceedings that was carried over to the House of Lords was the issue of the Government's response to the parliamentary ombudsman's report, which found the Government responsible for maladministration in relation to the previous planning procedures and the planning blight occasioned by the legislation.
As my hon. Friend will know, the predecessor of the present Secretary of State for Transport endeavoured to sustain the line that maladministration had not taken place, but that line proved unsustainable. It was reversed by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State, who gave an undertaking to the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration—which is responsible for the ombudsman's work—that the Government would respond positively to the ombudsman's finding of maladministration.
It is now more than a year since my right hon. Friend made that undertaking to the Select Committee—and, indeed, to Members of Parliament such as myself whose constituents are directly affected. I consider it deeply regrettable that the Government have not responded so far; I do not understand why it has taken them so long. I hope that, when he replies to the hon. Member for Withington, my hon. Friend the Minister will also deal with that extremely important issue, which concerns my constituents and others living along the line of the route.

Mr. David Chidgey: I, too, commend the work of our colleagues in the other place in scrutinising the Bill. As has been rightly said, it has made our job much easier.
May I link my concerns about the reopening of the tunnel with the amendments, and briefly ask the Minister whether he can provide any further information,

particularly in the light of doubts expressed about whether the safety procedures worked on the day of the fire, and the latest suggestion that arson may have been involved?
My most pressing concern is public reassurance. As the safety procedures are covered by a confidentiality agreement, no one seems to know exactly what has happened to the fire safety tests. Can the Minister tell us whether previous safety recommendations, designed and presented at an early stage of the tunnel's design, can be published in due course, so that we can establish which procedures were used and which were discarded, and the reasons for that?

Mr. Andrew Rowe: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before I call the next speaker, let me say that, although I have been tolerant so far, I do not intend to continue to be tolerant. We are discussing a group of amendments, and we must stick to the subject of those amendments.

Mr. Rowe: Unfortunately, the combination of a severe attack of 'flu and my growing belief that the version of the Bill that is on the Table is not the one to which the amendments relate is causing me some difficulty. I am not sure when I should make the point that I wish to make. I hope that you will not be too severe, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Watts: I am happy to join in the tributes paid by the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) and others to the work done in another place.
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that your indulgence will last long enough for me to say a few brief words about the reopening of the tunnel. Eurotunnel put proposals to the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority for the resumption of freight and passenger shuttle services. The authority considered its applications, together with the further work done on demonstration of safety procedures, and was satisfied that the resumption of services could be authorised. As I understand it, Eurotunnel has as yet made no proposal to resume heavy goods vehicle shuttle services, so no decision has had to be made on that aspect.
As right hon. and hon. Members will know, three inquiries are under way. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made it clear that he wanted the conclusions of the inquiry by the Channel Tunnel Safety Authority to be published. He also urged that the findings of the two inquiries by Eurotunnel should be published, but I do not believe that we have the power to require that. Similarly, he has been in touch with his French opposite number to urge that the outcome of the official French inquiries should be published. The House will understand that he can go no further than strongly urging our French colleague that that should be done.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) referred to our undertaking to respond to the report of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration by considering the feasibility of developing a scheme to provide some compensation for those who had suffered severe hardship, in the terms in which the Commissioner reported to the Committee, and which the Select Committee endorsed. Progress has been made in that


examination, and I hope shortly to be able to respond to the Select Committee. I think that my right hon. Friend will acknowledge that that is the proper way for us to make public our conclusions.
The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) also referred to the reopening of the tunnel. I hope that I have covered the matters about which he was concerned.

Mr. Bradley: I asked specifically whether the planning applications had any public expenditure implications. Will the Minister respond on that point?

Mr. Watts: I apologise. The effect of the amendments is to increase the flexibility of the fee regulations, and in particular to extend the time that a local authority has to determine a request for approval in the unlikely event that the payment of a fee that had been thought to have been made had in fact not been made—for example, if a cheque was dishonoured for some odd reason. There are no new public expenditure implications arising from the amendments.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 2 and 3 agreed to.

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 4, after clause 12, to insert the following new clause—Heritage: rights of entry—
(". Schedule (Heritage: rights of entry) to this Act (which makes provision about rights of entry for the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England and the Royal Commission on the Historical Monuments of England) shall have effect.")

Mr. Watts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 89 to 95.

Mr. Watts: The amendments bring into the Bill the rights for the appropriate heritage bodies to enter scheduled monuments, listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas affected by the channel tunnel rail link. Most of those rights had previously been covered in the draft heritage deeds for listed buildings and buildings in conservation areas, and for ancient monuments. Those agreements, which were negotiated to accompany the Bill's heritage provisions, are now incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. Bradley: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of the position on heritage matters. Throughout the passage of the Bill, a great deal of concern has been expressed about such matters, especially in respect of grade I listed buildings at St. Pancras—particularly the train sheds.
I am pleased to note that, as Lord Goschen said in another place, a deal has been struck on the possible relocation of the listed gasholder and water point, which had appeared to be an intractable problem. However, concern has been centred on the apparent disapplication of conventional conservation legislation and the normal safeguards of listed buildings, and their replacement: with the planning and heritage minimum requirements, which, as the House knows, are enforceable only by civil action

for breach of contract in the High Court. As the Minister pointed out, the heritage agreement, or deed, for Camden will be in place.
7.15 pm
Again, I pay tribute to the detailed work carried out in the other place by the Select Committee dealing with heritage matters. Throughout the passage of the Bill, both here and in the other place, detailed consideration has been given to the various problems. However, it was not until Third Reading in the other place that a possible mechanism was suggested that would allow the Secretary of State to determine any dispute between London and Continental Railways, English Heritage and the London borough of Camden. There was continual concern that there was no mechanism for full arbitration of the procedures, and that there was a rather complicated set of schedules, contracts, procedures, undertakings and agreements.
On Third Reading in the other place, Lord Goschen said:
at a very recent meeting LCR and English Heritage agreed that they should join together in defining a letter of intent from LCR. This would set out how the stages of consultation provided for in the heritage deed would operate and serve and therefore to identify any potential problems in time for them to be satisfactorily dealt with … I offered an additional provision in the heritage deed that introduces a process to determine an important area of potential disputes. This will allow English Heritage or the local planning authority to seek determination by the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport where English Heritage or the authority believes its agreement should be sought on a work but LCR proposes consultation. The Secretaries of State would thus be responsible for interpreting what the deed requires."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 1996; Vol. 575, c. 1385–86.]
Those provisions now form part of the Bill, and are important safeguards. Is the Minister satisfied that the new arrangements will ensure the protection of heritage matters—if I may use that shorthand for the various matters that will be under consideration? Is he certain that any dispute can be quickly resolved, and that the mechanisms agreed through what appear to be tortuous consultations will provide the safeguards that we all want? The essence of the legislation is to move on to speedy implementation, and we do not want any further delays in the development of what is an extremely important project.

Mr. Chidgey: Amendment No. 95 deals with rights of entry to heritage sites and scheduled monuments, especially in Greater London. There is concern about the effects on St. Pancras station of the channel tunnel rail link works. St. Pancras train shed is recognised worldwide as a masterpiece of Victorian engineering, and is an important grade 1 listed building. To accommodate the required new services, new tracks and station facilities will be needed on a massive scale. Some parts of the station will have to be demolished or extensively altered. The new trains will be a quarter of a mile long, which will require the length of the train shed to be doubled.
Of most concern is the fact that, because the Bill operates under the private finance initiative, which is not a problem in itself, the usual requirements and restrictions do not apply. No plans have to be produced by London and Continental Railways. No detailed designs are required until after the contract has been signed. That situation is unique. I do not think that Parliament has ever


previously provided such extensive powers to a contractor for major works to a grade 1 listed building without first having examined plans.
The key question is what controls on London and Continental Railways will exist when it has produced its plans. As has been mentioned, the Bill allows the disapplication of statutory controls in respect of the demolition and alteration of any part of the station. Those controls are replaced by a Department of Transport package to simplify and streamline arrangements.
The package includes design guidelines under the planning and heritage minimum requirements agreement and draft agreements for English Heritage and Camden council, the planning authority. However—and this is the key point—by setting aside the normal listed building consent procedures and replacing them with heritage agreements, the Government inevitably drastically circumscribe the ability of the planning authority and English Heritage to influence plans as they emerge.
The direct consequence is that the Government are depriving themselves of the right of ultimate determination in the event of an unacceptable scheme being proposed. In most matters, it seems that the Secretary of State will have no right to intervene, as he does in normal listed building cases.
I welcome the additional conservation safeguard of the planning and heritage minimum requirements, a wording that attempts to resolve the problem. However, in some quarters they are regarded disparagingly. Some regard them as worse than useless, because they are separate from the heritage agreement and part of a contract between the Department of Transport and London and Continental Railways. I am concerned that it could be enforced by the Department of Transport only if it took High Court action. That is hardly the best way to protect St. Pancras.
I welcome the fact that, at the eleventh hour, the Government have made some concessions, and that London and Continental Railways has agreed to define stages of construction in a letter of intent, so that English Heritage will be able to identify outstanding problems at any stage. I welcome the limited arbitration procedures, by which disagreements about what aspects of development come under which clauses of the agreement can be resolved.
I do not intend to jeopardise this important project by not accepting the case for setting aside normal listed building procedures. Nevertheless, there is a danger that we are introducing a fundamental flaw in setting aside listed building procedures and replacing them with an agreement that allows for almost no democratic scrutiny of developers' proposals, whether by local planning authorities, English Heritage or, as a crucial last resort, the Secretary of State.
We should recognise that this case has pushed the limits of disapplication further than has any other railways Bill. That situation is far from ideal, and we should not allow it to recur. I ask the Minister to assure us that this case will be considered as unique to the channel tunnel rail link, and will not come to be regarded as a precedent for other projects.

Mr. Rowe: The amendment goes to the heart of a great

many people's anxieties about the whole business. London and Continental Railways is keen to present itself as extraordinarily careful of the heritage involved and anxious to co-operate in every possible way. Considerable financial doubts hang over the financial viability of the railway. The readiness with which the Government, who originally said that they would not put any money into the scheme, have been pouring in money to make it viable, suggests that they share those anxieties. The problem with St. Pancras train shed, or anywhere else of heritage importance on the line, is that if the promoters run out of money during construction, it will be extraordinarily difficult to hold them to their undertakings. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address that point.

Mr. Watts: The hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Mr. Bradley) rightly referred to tortuous negotiations, but they have proved worth while. He was right to pay tribute to the work in another place. If we had not arrived at the right balance at the end of those tortuous negotiations, I should have faced many amendments this evening. I can therefore be confident that we have appropriate arrangements in place.
To the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey), I point out that amendments Nos. 4 and 95 give English Heritage greater powers of entry than it has under the National Heritage Act 1983. That is right and proper. He was concerned about whether a precedent was being established for setting aside the normal heritage arrangements. It is normal practice, with private and hybrid Bills that authorise major pieces of infrastructure, for the standard provisions retaining listed building consent to be totally disapplied. That used to be a blanket disapplication, but since a Government announcement in 1991, several Bills, such as those dealing with the Jubilee line extension and the docklands light railway Lewisham extension, have included special provisions for heritage. That more recent practice has been followed for this Bill, but we have gone further by creating a comprehensive replacement regime, negotiated with English Heritage and the interested local authorities. The general provisions of the heritage deed cover approval and consultation arrangements and, in addition, for St. Pancras, a set of planning and heritage minimum requirements. That is a contractual requirement on London and Continental Railways. In doing that, I believe that we have struck a proper balance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) suggested that financial difficulties might prevent the full arrangements being put into place. I hope that I can reassure him and the hon. Member for Eastleigh by reminding them that so far, we have not poured any money into London and Continental Railways. It is required to have incurred, I think, two thirds of the total cost of the project before a single penny of taxpayers' money can go to the company. That control of the purse strings reinforces the control that we have through contract law, to ensure that those important provisions are honoured in their implementation. I hope that I have reassured the House that the important heritage at the heart of the terminal is adequately protected by the arrangements that we have put in place.
Lords amendment agreed to.

Clause 18

RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION ORDERS

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 10, line 8, at end insert—
("() An agreement by the Secretary of State shall be effective notwithstanding that, in the case of a rail link service operator, it fetters the Secretary of State in relation to a discretion under sections 60 to 65 of, and Schedules 6 and 7 to, the 1993 Act (the railway administration order provisions of the Act).")

Mr. Watts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 16 and 22.

Mr. Bradley: The amendments relate to development agreements and undertakings with respect to financial assistance. I merely want to ask the Minister again whether they have any implications for public expenditure.

Mr. Watts: No new expenditure implications are embodied in the amendments.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendment: No. 6, in page 10, line 9, leave out ("made by statutory instrument")

Mr. Watts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 7, 9, 14, 15 and 17.

Mr. Bradley: The amendments relate to delegated powers, and they were tabled in response to the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee's report on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill. The Committee identified problems with clauses 18, 22 to 24 and clause 32(4) and (5).
The Bill originally provided for the various orders under those clauses to be made without being laid, and thus subject to no further parliamentary scrutiny. The Opposition welcome the fact that the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee felt that there should be further parliamentary scrutiny and suggested that the orders should be made subject to the negative resolution procedure. We always welcome further opportunity to scrutinise detailed legislation. My mind goes back to my previous position as shadow spokesman on social security. Statutory instruments relating to primary legislation on social security were often at least 10 times longer than the original Bill. I do not plead for extra work, but it is important for the integrity of the House that it has the opportunity, even if on a negative resolution, to scrutinise those important matters.
I recognise that the Government did not accept that such scrutiny should apply to clause 32(4) and (5). I understand the Government's arguments. I welcome the recommendations that have been made and I support the amendments.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 7 to 17 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

New clause

Lords amendment: No. 18, after clause 32, to insert the following new clause—Transfer of functions relating to works—
(".—(1) If the Secretary of State acquires any land for the purposes of this Part of this Act from a railway operator and there are situated on the land works authorised by statute, he may by order provide for the transfer of any statutory power or duty relating to the works previously exercisable by the railway operator—

(a) to him, or
(b) to a person specified under section 32 above.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide for the further transfer—

(a) to him, or
(b) to a person specified under section 32 above,

of a power or duty transferred under subsection (1) above or this subsection.
(3) If a railway operator acquires from the Secretary of State any land on which there are situated works authorised by this Part of this Act, the Secretary of State may, with the consent of the railway operator, by order provide for the transfer to the railway operator of any duty under this Part of this Act relating to the works.
(4) An order under this section may contain such supplementary, incidental, consequential or transitional provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient in connection with the order.
(5) In subsections (1) and (3) above, references to a railway operator are to a person who has the management for the time being of any network, station or light maintenance depot.
(6) In this section, "light maintenance depot", "network" and "station" have the same meanings as in Part I of the Railways Act 1993.")

Mr. Watts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sir John Stanley: This appears to be a substantive amendment. Will my hon. Friend the Minister give a brief explanation of its effect?

Mr. Watts: The new clause is inserted in the Bill following discussions with Railtrack during last year. It is intended to deal with the situation in which the Secretary of State acquires from a railway operator such as Railtrack land on which there are works that have been authorised by statute and, where it is appropriate, transfers to the Secretary of State the statutory powers and duties. It also covers the situation in which the Secretary of State disposes of land on which there are works that have been authorised by the Bill. Subject to the operator's agreement, the Secretary of State may provide for the transfer to that operator of any duty under part I of the Bill in relation to those works.

Sir John Stanley: Will my hon. Friend clarify whether London and Continental Railways is a railway operator for the purposes of the new clause?

Mr. Watts: Yes, it is.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 19 to 96 agreed to.

Schedule 9

DISAPPLICATION AND MODIFICATION OF MISCELLANEOUS CONTROLS

Lords amendment: No. 97, in page 177, line 48, leave out from beginning to end of line 3 on page 178 and insert—
("9.—(1) This paragraph applies where an application for the issue of a permit under the London Lorry Ban Order is made under paragraph 9A below or is otherwise expressed to be made in connection with the carrying out of authorised works.
(2) The application shall be granted if the issue of a permit is reasonably required—

(a) for the purpose of enabling authorised works to be carried out in a timely and efficient manner, or
(b) for the purpose of enabling authorised works to be carried out in accordance with approved arrangements.

(3) If the application is granted, no condition may be imposed which is likely to obstruct the carrying out of authorised works—

(a) in a timely and efficient manner, or
(b) in accordance with approved arrangements.

(4) If the applicant is aggrieved by a decision under subparagraph (2) or (3) above, he may appeal to the Secretary of State by giving notice in writing of the appeal to him and the authority whose decision is appealed against within 28 days of notification of the decision.
(5) On an appeal under sub-paragraph (4) above, the Secretary of State may allow or dismiss the appeal or vary the decision of the authority whose decision is appealed against.
(6) If on an appeal under sub-paragraph (4) above against a decision under sub-paragraph (3) above the Secretary of State varies the decision, the variation shall have effect from and including the date on which the appeal was constituted or such later date as the Secretary of State may specify.
(7) The applicant may not challenge a decision under sub-paragraph (3) above otherwise than by an appeal under sub-paragraph (4) above.
(8) In this paragraph—
approved arrangements" means arrangements approved for the purposes of any of the following provisions of Schedule 6 to this Act—

(a) paragraph 7, so far as relating to item I or 6 in the table in that paragraph,
(b) paragraph 16, so far as relating to item 5 in the table in that paragraph,
(c) paragraph 23, so far as relating to item 5 in the table in that paragraph, and
(d) paragraph 25;

authorised works" means works authorised by this Part of this Act; and
the London Lorry Ban Order" means the Greater London (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1985.

London lorries: emergency permits

9A.—(1) This paragraph applies where a person proposes to undertake a journey before the end of the next complete eight working days, being a journey—

(a) proposed to be undertaken in connection with the carrying out of authorised works, and
(b) for which a permit under the London Lorry Ban Order will be required.

(2) The person may apply for a permit under the Order for the journey by giving the details mentioned in sub-paragraph (3) below to the authority concerned by telephone or by means of facsimile transmission.
(3) The details referred to above are—

(a) the identity of the applicant,

(b) a number on which he can be contacted by telephone or by means of facsimile transmission,
(c) the registration number of the vehicle to which the application relates,
(d) the authorised works in connection with which the journey is to be undertaken,
(e) whether any approved arrangements are relevant to the application, and, if so, what they are,
(f) the date when the journey is proposed to be undertaken,
(g) if it is proposed to stop anywhere in Greater London for the purpose of making a delivery or collection, the place or places at which, and the time or times when, it is proposed to stop for that purpose.

(4) In this paragraph—
approved arrangements", "authorised works" and "the London Lorry Ban Order" have the same meanings as in paragraph 9 above; and
working day" means any day which is not a Saturday or Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971.
9B.—(1) An authority responsible for dealing with applications for permits under the London Lorry Ban Order shall make arrangements enabling applications under paragraph 9A above to be made at any time.
(2) Once an application for a permit has been made under paragraph 9A above, then, for the purpose of any relevant journey, the application shall be treated as granted subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may by order specify for the purposes of this provision.
(3) A journey is a relevant journey for the purposes of subparagraph (2) above if it is begun before the authority to which the application is made has communicated its decision on the application to the applicant by telephone or by means of facsimile transmission.
(4) If an application under paragraph 9A above has been granted, or is treated as granted, then, while the vehicle concerned is undertaking a journey covered by the application, paragraph 4 of the London Lorry Ban Order and of the Westminster Lorry Ban Order shall have effect in relation to it with the substitution for paragraph (a) of—
(a) in relation to any goods vehicle being driven by any person in a restricted street during the prescribed hours in respect of which an application under paragraph 9A of Schedule 9 to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Act 1996 has been granted, or is treated as granted, provided that any conditions subject to which the application is granted, or treated as granted, are complied with; or".
(5) The power to make an order under sub—paragraph (2) above includes—

(a) power to make different provision for different cases, and
(b) power to make an order varying or revoking any order previously made under that provision.

(6) In this paragraph—
the London Lorry Ban Order" has the same meaning as in paragraph 9 above; and
the Westminster Lorry Ban Order means the City of Westminster (Restriction of Goods Vehicles) Traffic Order 1992.")

Mr. Watts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment honours an assurance given during proceedings in another place and, as some hon. Members may know, it was the subject of much debate during the latter stages of the Bill's passage through the other House. It concerns the way in which the London boroughs traffic


scheme, otherwise known as the lorry ban, should be dealt with during the period of construction of this piece of rail infrastructure.

Mr. Bradley: I have a few words to say on the amendment, because it is worth noting that there was considerable discussion and not a little controversy about the way in which the current London lorry ban order would be changed to facilitate the construction of the rail link.
The contention effectively centred on the attempt to include the cost-effective manner in which the lorry ban would be changed. There was great concern that the cost-effective provision would allow the lorries involved in construction to use minor roads or roads through residential areas that proved more cost-effective than usual routes; and that the time limit would not be long enough for the authority to notify the applicant for changes to the lorry ban of its decision. As the Minister pointed out on Third Reading, the words "cost-effective" were removed and the London boroughs transport scheme has accepted the need for appeals against the imposition of conditions that might obstruct the carrying out of the works to go to the Secretary of State for determination. We are pleased that those requirements have now been included in the Bill.
While we do not wish to inhibit the construction in any way, it is essential that there is recognition of the need to protect the local environment and local residents and that all the new measures involved in the amendment are complied with. I am sure that the Minister, on behalf of the Secretary of State, will diligently monitor the changes to the so-called London lorry ban, while not undermining the original intention behind the scheme, which is to ensure quiet enjoyment of certain areas.
Again, excellent work has been undertaken in the other place to allow us to accept the amendments. The nature of the debate and the detailed way in which the other House undertook consideration of those matters have, again, helped to limit the amount of time that we need to spend debating them tonight. I am sure that, before we complete our deliberations on the amendment, the Minister will give an assurance that the new arrangements will be diligently monitored and adhered to, and, with that, we shall support the amendment tonight.

Mr. Watts: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 98 and 99 agreed to.

Schedule 13

PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS

Lords amendment: No. 100, in page 204, line 19, leave out ("statutory")

Mr. Watts: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 101 to 139 and 183 to 185.

Mr. Bradley: Before we conclude our consideration of the Lords amendments, it is important that we note that,

through the procedures adopted in the House—especially the work in the Chamber of the other place and the Select Committee procedure there—we now have a considerably better Bill than we would have had if that work had not been so diligently undertaken.
At every stage, Opposition Members have tried to facilitate the Bill's progress. Many of us feel that it was unduly delayed in the past and we are most anxious to ensure that there is no significant delay in future. Clearly, scrutiny is important and it will continue. It is also essential that the project is monitored to ensure that the developers and, ultimately, the operators comply with the conditions of the Bill when it is enacted.
We want to ensure that this important project is completed as soon as possible, to maximise the future potential of the channel tunnel and to maximise the links that it will make, not only to London, but throughout the country. In the light of the Minister's assurances that all necessary work is now under way for the upgrading of the west coast main line to Manchester and beyond, we must also maximise the benefits of that rail link. This is a project of national importance and significance, and we hope that it will now be proceeded with, with all due haste.

Mr. Watts: The expeditious way in which the House has dealt with about 100 amendments this evening has given the project a strong following wind. The Bill was subjected to careful scrutiny by a Select Committee of this House. All the members of that Committee worked extremely well together, under the able chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant)—in fact, I believe that they set a new record for the length of time spent in Committee on a Bill such as this, but they did not waste time in concentrating on making necessary improvements to the Bill.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the Bill that we shall pass this evening for Royal Assent is a much better Bill than the one that was introduced in this House in January 1995. Of particular note has been the provision of a further station at Stratford, with the enormous regeneration benefits that that will bring to east London. I am grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House for approaching the Bill and the project in a constructive and co-operative manner. As the hon. Gentleman said, this is a project of national significance and it is right that it has support from all sections of this nation's Parliament.
Lords amendment agreed to.
Lords amendments Nos. 101 to 185 agreed to.
7.47 pm
Sitting suspended.
10 pm
On resuming—
It being Ten o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 52 (Consideration of estimates), put the deferred Question necessary to dispose of proceedings on Vote on Account, 1997–98 (Clause XVII, Vote 1).
Resolved,
That a sum, not exceeding £78,288,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for the year ending on 31st March 1998 for


expenditure by the Office of the Minister for Public Service on the central management of the Civil Service; expenditure resulting from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster's chairmanship of the BSE Implementation Committee; expenditure on privatisation of executive agencies; and certain other services.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions required to be put, pursuant to paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 53 (Questions on voting of estimates &c.).

Orders of the Day — SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1996–97

Resolved,
That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,424,973,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges for defence and civil services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 1997, as set out in HC 18 of Session 1996–97.

Orders of the Day — ESTIMATES, 1997–98 (VOTE ON ACCOUNT)

Resolved,
That a further sum, not exceeding £96,783,374,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for defence and civil services in Classes Ito XVI; Class XVII, Votes 2 to 3; Class XVIII; and Classes XVIII, A and XVIII, B for the year ending on 31st March 1998, as set out in HC 19, 20 and 21 of Session 1996–97.1
Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. William Waldegrave, Mr. Michael Jack, Mrs. Angela Knight and Mr. Phillip Oppenheim.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Mr. Michael Jack accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain funds out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31 March 1997; And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time, and to be printed [Bill 50].
Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Order [6 December] and Standing Order No. 54 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Eric Pickles: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is my understanding that the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges has considered its report and that Members have been told to remain silent when it is produced tomorrow at 3.30 pm, yet I understand that members of the press are being briefed on that. Will you, start an inquiry to find out who has breached this understanding, so that the House should know these matters before the press should know?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): It is for the Committee to decide whether a matter has been leaked from that Committee and if there is such a leak, it will be for that Committee to investigate the matter of that particular leak. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Orders of the Day — Party Political Radio Broadcasts

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLoughlin.]

Mr. Michael Fabricant (Mid-Staffordshire): Love them or loathe them, party political broadcasts are part of the British way of life. They substitute for the American practice where political commercials are bought on radio and television, and the richer the candidate, the more commercials he can buy. That, I believe, creates a gross distortion of democracy. In this country, the Head of Government need not be a multi-millionaire.
A distortion exists in this country as well. I welcome the opportunity this evening to draw the House's attention to a significant denial of access for exposure of important political argument on national radio. That iniquitous omission has not received attention until now, and as a result we have acquiesced in permitting unequal obligations to be placed upon national commercial radio and the publicly funded broadcasters—the BBC—in respect of party political and election broadcasts. Extraordinary as it may seem, it is the BBC, and not independent national radio, that is failing to deliver across all the national networks.
I am addressing the matter now because we have seen from recent press reports that the Radio Authority—which is responsible for the three national commercial radio channels, as well as independent local radio—has announced a requirement that each of those carry party political broadcasts.
The broadcasting legislation requires the authority to include a suitable licence condition for those national licensees and, as a result of extensive recent discussions, the Radio Authority has put in place a structure to ensure that Talk Radio UK, Classic FM and Virgin Radio carry party political broadcasts for the main parties. That will mean that party election broadcasts will be carried on those channels, representing a real step forward in the opening up of the political process to important audiences.
Of course the commercial companies have greeted that with varying degrees of enthusiasm. I believe that one of those companies thinks that such broadcasts might encourage listeners to turn off. Surely that cannot be true. Generally, it has been encouraging to see the way in which the commercial companies have adopted the Radio Authority's ruling and got on with making proper arrangements. The first party political broadcasts on commercial radio were heard on Talk Radio UK and Classic FM while some of us were at Bournemouth and were otherwise occupied.
I received a letter today by courier from Paul Robinson, who is the general manager of Talk Radio UK. He points out in his letter that
Talk Radio is the only national speech competitor to the BBC…We believe that our role is to offer 'Democracy Direct'"—
as he puts it. Mr. Robinson continues:
Our audience is currently just under two and a half million and growing…***On Parliamentary Broadcasts our view is to welcome them. We regard these broadcasts as part of the democratic process, of which we are a key component, and believe that they stimulate debate and discussion in the country. The only issue for Talk Radio is the inequity of the situation in which the BBC's national stations are not all obliged to carry PPBs, unlike independent national radio.


It will probably be assumed that that means that all the national radio services are now playing their proper part in promoting our parliamentary democracy. I had assumed so, but I find that I am wrong. Only two out of the five BBC national radio channels carry party political broadcasts, or will carry party election broadcasts. Radio 1 does not do so, Radio 3 does not do so, and even Radio 5 Live—set up with a fanfare to be a demotic news and speech network—makes no provision for that type of broadcast.
Why must Virgin Radio carry party political broadcasts, when Radio 1 does not? Why must Classic FM carry party political broadcasts, when Radio 3 does not? Why must Talk Radio UK carry party political broadcasts, when Radio 5 Live does not? The BBC claims to be the defender of public service broadcasting and often belittles commercial radio. I think that the BBC has a case to answer.
There is obviously something wrong. I can see no justification for Radio 5 failing to carry PPBs. As my right hon. Friend—I say that advisedly—the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) would probably remind us, what goes out on Radio 3 is all too often a mystery to everyone, but the exclusion of party political broadcasts and party election broadcasts from BBC Radio 1 is particularly anti-democratic.
Radio 1 is the BBC network that most appeals to young people; indeed, according to audience research, it is virtually the only BBC radio channel—national or local—that primarily attracts listeners of my age, your age, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and younger! The education of young people in the political process is a key factor in the continuance of our parliamentary democracy.
The BBC makes great play about the social responsibility of Radio 1—or at least it did at the time of the charter renewal—and it deserves genuine praise for programmes such as "Newsbeat", which I had the honour of working on many years ago when it was first broadcast. However, when it comes to reflecting the political process to its 11 million listeners through party broadcasts—particularly party election broadcasts—the BBC is suddenly less forthcoming.
How can it be right that the main television channels carry PPBs, that national commercial radio stations such as Virgin Radio carry PPBs, but the BBC shuts the door to Radio 1, Radio 3 and Radio 5 in such an arbitrary manner? In these days of soundbite politics—much beloved of the Labour party—does it not seem surprising that that unique opportunity to explore issues in more depth is not seized by all BBC networks, as it will be in the 21 broadcasts to be aired by their commercial counterparts? If I may digress for a moment, was it not revealing that, while Virgin and Capital FM observed the two-minute silence on Armistice day, Radio 1 did not?
The BBC must recognise that it has significantly more than the lion's share of the available national frequencies. In particular, it enjoys the resources for four FM networks while the commercial side has only one. Despite that fact, commercial radio now attracts more listeners than the BBC. It has not been easy for the independent sector to reflect the full colour of the political spectrum on national services whose transmission arrangements do not lend themselves to more localised opting out.
Whereas the BBC may allocate broadcasts on its Scottish and Welsh national regional services to parties contesting constituencies in those regions alone,

independent national radio has had to make scarce time available on its United Kingdom-wide services for those nationalist party broadcasts. As a result, my constituents in Staffordshire and others elsewhere will have to feast their ears on the intricacies of internal Welsh and Scottish issues. We can only hope that the party political broadcasts by Plaid Cymru, transmitted throughout England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by Classic FM, Virgin Radio and Talk Radio UK, will at least be broadcast in English rather than Welsh—although, on second thoughts, perhaps Welsh would be better.
If the corporation is to continue to justify having a four to one share of national FM channels, it will need to provide more convincing evidence that it is meeting its much vaunted public service remit. That remit cannot be validated only where the BBC chooses. In the case of party political broadcasts, it is not enough for the corporation to move them to the older and less populist preserves of Radio 4 and Radio 2 purely because that is the way it was in the days of the Home Service and the light programme. Time has marched on and, since 1967, it has been BBC Radio by numbers—although it seems that someone at the BBC still cannot count from one to five.
The political process is entitled to the broad exposure that the deliberately popular services of Radio 1 and Radio 5 Live would provide. Why should the Radio 1 audience be deprived of the same level of political education that is compulsorily available to Virgin Radio listeners? If Classic FM can carry party political broadcasts, why not Radio 3? After all, in classical music programming, the commercial station has more than given the BBC a run for its money—or should I say our money, as it is the licence payers' funds? Great things are at stake at the next election—employment, mortgage rates and the very sovereignty of our nation. All that could be thrown away if there is a change of Government.
I believe that Parliament would be right to insist that the BBC look again at its arrangements for party political broadcasts on radio. In the past year, the House has granted the BBC a renewal of its charter—which I know that some of my hon. Friends did not welcome. In the debates about that renewal, and in much discussion and presentation outside this House, we have heard about the BBC's role in preserving the nation's heritage. It is right that we should have that in mind, and right that we should look to the BBC to be a stalwart defender of that heritage.
The electoral process is surely at least as much a central part of the British heritage as the broadcast of live coverage of the cup final. With the fate of our nation hanging on an electoral thread, the BBC cannot have it both ways, and the Government should be pressing the corporation to ensure that there is proper access right across the board—right across all five networks.
If the BBC thinks it right to broadcast party political broadcasts on Radios 2 and 4, why does it think that it is not right to broadcast them on Radios, 1, 3 and 5? It must make up its mind. That inconsistency must be addressed.
In any event, I believe that we shall have to look at the rules again. It costs £1,000 to put up one candidate, so under the rules only £50,000 would buy time on BBC1, BBC2, ITV, Channel 4, Virgin Radio, Classic FM, Talk Radio UK and—currently—BBC Radios 2 and 4. Where can one buy five minutes of national television time for just £50,000—let alone on all networks?
What if Cadbury were to put up 50 chocolate party candidates, or, more worryingly, what if the pro-abortion or anti-abortion lobbies were to put up candidates? What if a racist or similarly sinister party were to put up candidates? Either way, it is time for Government to revisit this issue.

The Minister of State, Department of National Heritage (Mr. Iain Sproat): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) on securing the debate. This is probably an opportune time to discuss such an issue, given that party political broadcasts will play an increasingly significant role for political parties, viewers and listeners as we approach the next general election. For many years, broadcasters have offered time for the main political parties to present their policies to the electorate, and I certainly share the view that the major political parties in the United Kingdom should have direct access to television and radio.
As Lord Annan's committee commented in its 1977 report on the future of broadcasting, political parties are there to provide the statesmen and policies to govern the country, and the country's media should provide them with an opportunity to address the people. Broadcasting has a crucial role to play, through its ability to reach almost every home in the United Kingdom, to inform the public debate.
My hon. Friend has voiced his concerns about the implications of party political broadcasts for national commercial radio stations. I know that he has discussed these with the Radio Authority in the light of the authority's press announcement of 12 September, which established the new arrangements for party political broadcasts on national commercial radio. That is significant, as it is the first time that the requirement to carry party political broadcasts, introduced by the Broadcasting Act 1990, has been applied to national commercial radio stations.
I agree with the my hon. Friend's view that the arrangements represent a real step in opening up the political process to audiences, but I also recognise that this is a new situation and that, as broadcasting develops, especially with the introduction of digital channels and a greater abundance of channels, the regulators and Parliament will want to keep the arrangements under review.
My hon. Friend may be aware that it was only after some hesitation that matters of political controversy were allowed on the ether, then known as the wireless—from March 1928, in fact. In reviewing the success of that experiment, the Ullswater committee in 1936 set the ground rules for future arrangements for party political broadcasts, which were essentially that the allocation of time for such broadcasts should be agreed between the broadcaster—at that time, of course, only the BBC—and the political parties. As the committee recommended,
The BBC must, of course, continue to be the judge of the amount of political broadcasting which the programme will stand".
With the advent of commercial television broadcasting, the arrangements for agreeing the allocation of time were replicated, with both the BBC and independent television authorities agreeing the allocation of time in close

co-operation with political parties. Crucial to the way in which those arrangements developed is that the Government did not seek to determine the allocation of airtime—not only for the reason Ullswater stated, but because it would be wrong for the Government to seek to interfere with broadcasters over a matter in which the Government would have a particular, politically partisan interest.
The current framework for party political broadcasts on commercial channels was established by the Broadcasting Act 1990. In the Bill, as published, the Government sought to transfer directly into the new broadcasting regime the arrangements subsisting between the BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority and the political parties—by granting discretion to the regulators to agree arrangements with the political parties. There was a lively debate about the merits of party political broadcasts and some support in the House for ending altogether PPBs on commercial television. Those were the days—fresh in the minds of some—of such great works as "Kinnock—The Movie".
In his reply to that debate, the then Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor), emphasised that the presence of party political broadcasts on both the BBC and commercial broadcasters was not too high a price to pay for the absence of political advertising. That view has been endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire.
Hon. Members may be aware that provisions in the 1990 Act prohibit advertising inserted by or on behalf of any body whose objects are wholly or mainly of a political nature or which is directed towards any political end.

Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend will be aware that Amnesty International is currently appealing, and suggesting that its advertising is not politically motivated. Does he agree that that would be contrary to the spirit of the decision taken by the House during the passage of the 1990 legislation?

Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend raises an extremely interesting point. I think that Amnesty International was specifically mentioned in the debate, and that that point was considered by the Committee. I should like to refresh myself on the Committee's exact words, but certainly my recollection is that the House of Commons, and therefore the Houses of Parliament, decided that it did not want a body such as Amnesty—as marvellous and splendid as it is in many ways—to be allowed to advertise. I do not know the details of the case mentioned by my hon. Friend, but I should be very surprised if a court of law, on appeal or in any other circumstances, sought to overturn a clear decision expressed in a specific debate of a Committee of the House, which was then endorsed by the House of Commons and by the House of Lords. It is such an interesting point that I should like to examine it later in more detail.
The aim of the provisions is to protect viewers and listeners from intrusive political or politically motivated and campaigning advertising, and to avoid broadcast advertising becoming part of the political process. I believe that the American model of political advertising is decidedly not something that we want to witness in the United Kingdom, given its risk of diluting the quality of political debate.
When the 1990 legislation was considered in Committee, it appeared that the new relationship to be established between the new broadcasting regulatory bodies—the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority—and the licensed broadcasters, within a clear statutory framework, risked doing away with the established practice of providing party political broadcasts on commercial channels. Parliament decided that the discretion that the old Independent Broadcasting Authority had possessed should become a duty in respect of Channels 3 and 4 and the national commercial radio services.
When moving Government amendments to give expression to the will of the Standing Committee, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney explained:
The reason for the Government amendments is to take account of the fact that the IBA was the broadcaster and could therefore direct the various constituent companies of the ITV network to show party political broadcasts. The ITC will not be the broadcaster. Therefore we require a statutory framework".—[Official Report, 9 May 1990; Vol. 172, c. 203.]
The same principle was applied to radio.
The constitutional position of the BBC was not changed, and I have noted my hon. Friend's comments that there is no specific requirement on the BBC to carry party political broadcasts on each of its five national radio stations. I understand that, at present, only BBC Radio 2 and Radio 4 carry them. The Radio Authority drew attention to that when it announced its arrangements for party political broadcasts on national commercial radio on 12 September.
The number of party political broadcasts to be broadcast on national commercial radio is equivalent to the number broadcast on BBC Radio 2—up to two PPBs for the Conservative party and the Labour party and one for the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru, with the scheduling being determined by the broadcasters within certain parameters. That is not, I believe, an onerous obligation. For the BBC, however, Radio 2's output of party political broadcasts would, under current arrangements, be augmented by a further 18 party political broadcasts on Radio 4, divided between the main political parties in the United Kingdom. This, to me, does not suggest that the BBC is neglecting its public service responsibilities in respect of party political broadcasting; rather, it shows that the corporation is committed to providing a range of party political programming that caters for the interests of the parties and the public.
Furthermore, the BBC has wide-ranging public service obligations, including a specific obligation to broadcast an impartial account of the proceedings in both Houses of Parliament, and to ensure that political matters are widely and seriously considered in programmes across all its services.
That said, I acknowledge that the arrangements for specifically party political broadcasts on the BBC differ from those for national commercial radio stations. That is partly a function of the different arrangements under which the broadcasters are constituted. The BBC is one broadcaster operating a range of channels, while the national radio licensees operate only one channel under each licence. The BBC's arrangements have been agreed in the light of discussions with the political parties. As far as I am aware, the main political parties have been

broadly satisfied with the arrangements for party political broadcasts on BBC Radio, although some smaller parties would prefer to increase their allocations. In general, for many decades the BBC has held a difficult ring. It is open to the parties to put forward alternative proposals if they wish.
I remain of the view that this is not an area in which Government should be prescriptive. It must remain for the BBC, the ITC and the Radio Authority to agree the appropriate allocation of time for party political broadcasts in close co-operation with the political parties. Parliament determined that the national commercial licensees should be required to carry PPBs and it is for the regulators to ensure that the particular obligations are fair and reasonable, making different provision for different cases or circumstances, as provided by the Act.
The arrangements for PPBs are an important contribution to the political process. I do not believe that the allocations of time agreed currently could reasonably be considered to blunt the competitive edge of our commercial broadcasters. If those slots are taken up by the political parties, it will clearly be in their interests to make their broadcasts as attractive as possible.
Decisions about the provision of airtime for party political broadcasts, including the scheduling arrangements, are properly matters for the broadcasters and the regulatory authorities. We do not seek to intervene in the decisions and have no plans to impose a requirement specifying how or when the BBC or other broadcasters should carry party political broadcasts. That is a matter that an independent BBC must negotiate with the political parties.
I believe that the arrangements for party political broadcasts work satisfactorily in the United Kingdom. They provide for the main political parties a vehicle on commercial and public service television and radio by which to communicate directly with the public. That is carried out within a framework that correctly leaves with the broadcasters the responsibility for maintaining a proper balance between different points of view and the maintenance of editorial standards.
The openness of our broadcasting media to the democratic process is one of the strengths of our system and reflects the independence of our media from Government control. It is a luxury denied to many other countries. The presence of party political broadcasts on terrestrial television and radio saves us from the perils of expensive and intrusive political advertising.
There is no doubt that the position between BBC Radio and the national commercial channels differs: it is never possible to make things exactly the same between competing channels, but the structure that has been established provides a proper forum for determining a fair spread of PPBs. In a fast-changing broadcasting world, we and the regulators will want to keep the formal arrangements under review. I do not accept, however, that the current arrangements demonstrate any manifest failure of the BBC's public service remit. The arrangements in place have been established through a process of consensus and negotiation. Any changes may be agreed between the key players—the broadcasters, the broadcasting regulatory authorities and the main political parties. That is democracy in action.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.